Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
protagonist
Posts: 6822
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by protagonist »

bertilak wrote:I saw it the first weekend it came out. I *loved* it, my girlfriend hated it. I've probably seen it 15 times since then, and it made me a lifelong Kubrick fan.

Still married to her, and she still hates it.

:happy
That was the most beautiful love story I have heard in a long time. I think my girlfriend would hate it too. You give me hope.
Grogs
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:55 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by Grogs »

I always feel like I should like this movie. I'm a major-league space nerd who grew up on the original Star Wars movies and Star Trek reruns. I also read all of the books in the series, and the sequel, 2010, is perhaps my favorite movie of all time. In fact, I saw 2010 when it came out in the theater when I was in junior high school. I took a date, and I was so engrossed in the movie I completely ignored her. :D

So, when I saw 2001 on Netflix a couple of months ago, I decided to watch it again. It had been nearly a decade, and I had forgotten a lot of it. After watching it, all I can say is, yuck! I think the point of the movie is pretty obvious - to show off the gee-whiz special effects. If you cut out all of the long, silent shots and compressed it down to just the scenes where something was happening, I believe the entire thing would fit in a one-hour TV slot even with time out for commercials. The 15-minute trip through the monolith at the end was the worst though. I highly suspect that the, um, "recreational enhancement" theory is correct on this one. For me, I got bored after about a minute and fast-forwarded to the end of it. That could have been forgiven, but the little bit of dialogue just wasn't enough to make me fee a connection to the characters. I could barely bring myself to care whether they made it or not at the end.
User avatar
cheese_breath
Posts: 10090
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by cheese_breath »

Grogs wrote:I always feel like I should like this movie. I'm a major-league space nerd who grew up on the original Star Wars movies and Star Trek reruns. I also read all of the books in the series, and the sequel, 2010, is perhaps my favorite movie of all time. In fact, I saw 2010 when it came out in the theater when I was in junior high school. I took a date, and I was so engrossed in the movie I completely ignored her. :D

So, when I saw 2001 on Netflix a couple of months ago, I decided to watch it again. It had been nearly a decade, and I had forgotten a lot of it. After watching it, all I can say is, yuck! I think the point of the movie is pretty obvious - to show off the gee-whiz special effects. If you cut out all of the long, silent shots and compressed it down to just the scenes where something was happening, I believe the entire thing would fit in a one-hour TV slot even with time out for commercials. The 15-minute trip through the monolith at the end was the worst though. I highly suspect that the, um, "recreational enhancement" theory is correct on this one. For me, I got bored after about a minute and fast-forwarded to the end of it. That could have been forgiven, but the little bit of dialogue just wasn't enough to make me fee a connection to the characters. I could barely bring myself to care whether they made it or not at the end.
I can appreciate how someone your age might get a little bored, but you need to understand the world of 1968 compared to when you grew up. The Apollo program was at it's height. We were only one year from landing on the moon, and dreams of going to other planets after that abounded. The story line fit perfectly with that culture. And here's a little tidbit you may not know. In 1968 IBM ruled the roost in the computer world. Did you notice each of the letters in IBM is one letter greater than the letters in HAL?
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
denismurf
Posts: 544
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:29 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by denismurf »

The main thing I don't understand is why this movie is not re-run in full size theaters today. I would pay a premium to see it in a theater at least once a year.

The first time I saw it, I thought it was kinda interesting. The second time, a few days later, I understood the ape sequence, the bone toss and its transition, and enough of the rest to be blown away. Ever since, I don't hesitate when somebody asks me what I think is the best movie of all time. Nothing else even comes close to 2001. Especially not 2010, which drained all the mystery and imagination out of 2001, leaving just a standard sci-fi hodge podge of hokey special effects and a story line I honestly can't remember a thing about.

But that's just my opinion after just one viewing. Maybe I'd feel different if I saw it a second time.
User avatar
cheese_breath
Posts: 10090
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by cheese_breath »

cheese_breath wrote:
Grogs wrote:I always feel like I should like this movie. I'm a major-league space nerd who grew up on the original Star Wars movies and Star Trek reruns. I also read all of the books in the series, and the sequel, 2010, is perhaps my favorite movie of all time. In fact, I saw 2010 when it came out in the theater when I was in junior high school. I took a date, and I was so engrossed in the movie I completely ignored her. :D

So, when I saw 2001 on Netflix a couple of months ago, I decided to watch it again. It had been nearly a decade, and I had forgotten a lot of it. After watching it, all I can say is, yuck! I think the point of the movie is pretty obvious - to show off the gee-whiz special effects. If you cut out all of the long, silent shots and compressed it down to just the scenes where something was happening, I believe the entire thing would fit in a one-hour TV slot even with time out for commercials. The 15-minute trip through the monolith at the end was the worst though. I highly suspect that the, um, "recreational enhancement" theory is correct on this one. For me, I got bored after about a minute and fast-forwarded to the end of it. That could have been forgiven, but the little bit of dialogue just wasn't enough to make me fee a connection to the characters. I could barely bring myself to care whether they made it or not at the end.
I can appreciate how someone your age might get a little bored, but you need to understand the world of 1968 compared to when you grew up. The Apollo program was at it's height. We were only one year from landing on the moon, and dreams of going to other planets after that abounded. The story line fit perfectly with that culture. And here's a little tidbit you may not know. In 1968 IBM ruled the roost in the computer world. Did you notice each of the letters in IBM is one letter greater than the letters in HAL?
Just to elaborate a little more on my comment about the world of 1968... In 1968 there were no personal computers, pocket calculators or digital watches. Except for those working in the field there was very little understanding of computers among the general population. Long before the Terminator movies there were a few who thought computers were too smart and could constitute a threat to human control of the world. HAL taking control of the ship from the humans, whether intentionally or through system error played well on those fears. For another example one might be interested in watching Colossus:The Forbin Project, a 1970 movie about a supercomputer developed to protect America which becomes self-aware and collaborates with a similar Russian computer to take over the world.
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
Valuethinker
Posts: 41790
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by Valuethinker »

Grogs wrote:I always feel like I should like this movie. I'm a major-league space nerd who grew up on the original Star Wars movies and Star Trek reruns. I also read all of the books in the series, and the sequel, 2010, is perhaps my favorite movie of all time. In fact, I saw 2010 when it came out in the theater when I was in junior high school. I took a date, and I was so engrossed in the movie I completely ignored her. :D

So, when I saw 2001 on Netflix a couple of months ago, I decided to watch it again. It had been nearly a decade, and I had forgotten a lot of it. After watching it, all I can say is, yuck! I think the point of the movie is pretty obvious - to show off the gee-whiz special effects. If you cut out all of the long, silent shots and compressed it down to just the scenes where something was happening, I believe the entire thing would fit in a one-hour TV slot even with time out for commercials. The 15-minute trip through the monolith at the end was the worst though. I highly suspect that the, um, "recreational enhancement" theory is correct on this one. For me, I got bored after about a minute and fast-forwarded to the end of it. That could have been forgiven, but the little bit of dialogue just wasn't enough to make me fee a connection to the characters. I could barely bring myself to care whether they made it or not at the end.
It looks much better on a big screen. I agree the psychedelic 60s had something to do with the popularity. When Fantasia came out it wasn't that much of a success, but when Disney rereleased it in the late 60s/ early 70s, it was recognized as a classic (by those with a penchant for recreational pharmaceuticals, as well ;-)).

There is a list of SF films that has held up well, Top 10 if you will, including

- The Day the Earth Stood Still
- Quatermass and The Pit
- Forbidden Planet - the scene with the attack on the forceshield fence *still* chills me
- Silent Running - the SFX, and it seems even more prescient now (last forests, being preserved in space)
- 2001
- Gattacca - one of the great "think piece" movies
- I would give some credit to A Scanner Darkly as a brilliant realization of Philip K Dick's imaginings (ending a bit weak, but that's common with Dick)
- Blade Runner - still packs an amazing impact on a big screen
- Planet of the Apes -still a movie just packed with ideas
- Terminator - as often, the original of a series has the gem of a great idea and realization
- Alien - that whole conception of what a real space industrial operation would look like
- Close Encounters
- ET - the story of a child alien from a superpowerful race lost amongst humans is hardly new (see Robert Heinlein The Star Beast) but superbly well executed

You also get a whole series of films that had some pretty good ideas or executions-- usually dystopian. The Thing. Escape from New York. Conquest of the Planet of the Apes. Escape from Planet of the Apes. I have even heard someone recommend Soylent Green ;-). Mad Max (ie Road Warrior 2). The 3 Verhoevens: Total Recall, Robocop and Starship Troopers (the satiric element in each is usually missed).

I haven't been able to compare The Omega Man with I Am Legend, the latter I think tried to get closer to the original Richard Matheson novel. (You also want to try to find the Theodore Cogswell short story The Masters, which is in his collection The Wall Around the World).

2010 I thought was good and worthy, rather than path breaking. Had to tie up the loose ends of the first one.

Star Wars and Star Trek I had mixed feelings about. The first ushered in a popcorn version of Science Fiction films, leading to 100 imitations and ripoffs, including some of the other movies in the SW series (and the latest one, basically a remake). So whilst SW and TESB were great, they led SF films into a dead end.

Star Trek kicked off an increasing deviation from The Original Series and then The Next Generation. Some of the movies were good (the Voyage Home the closest in tone to the original series) and some bad, but overall ST has now become another adventure series, lacking the spirit of the original.
Last edited by Valuethinker on Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Valuethinker
Posts: 41790
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by Valuethinker »

cheese_breath wrote:
cheese_breath wrote:
Grogs wrote:I always feel like I should like this movie. I'm a major-league space nerd who grew up on the original Star Wars movies and Star Trek reruns. I also read all of the books in the series, and the sequel, 2010, is perhaps my favorite movie of all time. In fact, I saw 2010 when it came out in the theater when I was in junior high school. I took a date, and I was so engrossed in the movie I completely ignored her. :D

So, when I saw 2001 on Netflix a couple of months ago, I decided to watch it again. It had been nearly a decade, and I had forgotten a lot of it. After watching it, all I can say is, yuck! I think the point of the movie is pretty obvious - to show off the gee-whiz special effects. If you cut out all of the long, silent shots and compressed it down to just the scenes where something was happening, I believe the entire thing would fit in a one-hour TV slot even with time out for commercials. The 15-minute trip through the monolith at the end was the worst though. I highly suspect that the, um, "recreational enhancement" theory is correct on this one. For me, I got bored after about a minute and fast-forwarded to the end of it. That could have been forgiven, but the little bit of dialogue just wasn't enough to make me fee a connection to the characters. I could barely bring myself to care whether they made it or not at the end.
I can appreciate how someone your age might get a little bored, but you need to understand the world of 1968 compared to when you grew up. The Apollo program was at it's height. We were only one year from landing on the moon, and dreams of going to other planets after that abounded. The story line fit perfectly with that culture. And here's a little tidbit you may not know. In 1968 IBM ruled the roost in the computer world. Did you notice each of the letters in IBM is one letter greater than the letters in HAL?
Just to elaborate a little more on my comment about the world of 1968... In 1968 there were no personal computers, pocket calculators or digital watches. Except for those working in the field there was very little understanding of computers among the general population. Long before the Terminator movies there were a few who thought computers were too smart and could constitute a threat to human control of the world. HAL taking control of the ship from the humans, whether intentionally or through system error played well on those fears. For another example one might be interested in watching Colossus:The Forbin Project, a 1970 movie about a supercomputer developed to protect America which becomes self-aware and collaborates with a similar Russian computer to take over the world.
Remember Dilbert's videophone ;-) ? The only one in the world, so he has to wait for a second one for him to receive a call.

Like Star Trek there was a lot in 2001 which was pathbreaking, and to some extent technology has been driven by the visions those movies created. A hospital bed looks a lot more like the Star Trek sickbay than it did in 1968-- all the technology.

Isaac Asimov describes what is pretty close to a pocket computer/ ipad in the first book of Foundation, when the character meets Hari Seldon.

The main innovation that I don't remember (not even in William Gibson's Neuromance of 1984) is the mobile phone. Other than the Dick Tracey watch ;-). And no one imagined Skype ;-). Space 1999 had something close to it on Moonbase Alpha.

"Waldos" of course (small teleoperators) were invented in a story by Robert Heinlein. Also the waterbed. And geosynchronous telecommunications satellites (Arthur C. Clarke).
User avatar
cheese_breath
Posts: 10090
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by cheese_breath »

Valuethinker wrote: You also get a whole series of films that had some pretty good ideas or executions-- usually dystopian. The Thing. Escape from New York. Conquest of the Planet of the Apes. Escape from Planet of the Apes. I have even heard someone recommend Soylent Green ;-). Mad Max (ie Road Warrior 2). The 3 Verhoevens: Total Recall, Robocop and Starship Troopers (the satiric element in each is usually missed).
Sometimes the originals are best. The 1950's version of The Thing (with James Arness playing the monster) and War of the Worlds although simpler than the remakes were much better IMO. Same for Charlton Heston's 1968 Planet of the Apes.
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
Valuethinker
Posts: 41790
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by Valuethinker »

cheese_breath wrote:
Valuethinker wrote: You also get a whole series of films that had some pretty good ideas or executions-- usually dystopian. The Thing. Escape from New York. Conquest of the Planet of the Apes. Escape from Planet of the Apes. I have even heard someone recommend Soylent Green ;-). Mad Max (ie Road Warrior 2). The 3 Verhoevens: Total Recall, Robocop and Starship Troopers (the satiric element in each is usually missed).
Sometimes the originals are best. The 1950's version of The Thing (with James Arness playing the monster) and War of the Worlds although simpler than the remakes were much better IMO. Same for Charlton Heston's 1968 Planet of the Apes.
I remember thinking the John Carpenter version of The Thing, actually was a very good movie? Played the horror aspect more. I agree the 50s one was good, and the John Campbell short story even better.

Haven't seen W of the W so cannot say. The radio play (Orson Welles) is very good.

Yes to the 1968 Planet of the Apes and that is the one that I meant. It's a movie which speaks on so many levels: fears of mass destruction, racial hatred etc.
Valuethinker
Posts: 41790
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by Valuethinker »

I should mention The Day the Earth Caught Fire - a classic of 1950s British SF.
User avatar
SpringMan
Posts: 5421
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by SpringMan »

cheese_breath wrote: I can appreciate how someone your age might get a little bored, but you need to understand the world of 1968 compared to when you grew up. The Apollo program was at it's height. We were only one year from landing on the moon, and dreams of going to other planets after that abounded. The story line fit perfectly with that culture. And here's a little tidbit you may not know. In 1968 IBM ruled the roost in the computer world. Did you notice each of the letters in IBM is one letter greater than the letters in HAL?
I agree and might add so where psychedelic drugs which possibly could have enhanced the movies music and special visual effects.
Best Wishes, SpringMan
User avatar
cheese_breath
Posts: 10090
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by cheese_breath »

Valuethinker wrote: I remember thinking the John Carpenter version of The Thing, actually was a very good movie? Played the horror aspect more....
I'm not saying The Thing remake was bad. In fact I agree it was pretty good. I just didn't think a shape shifting monster was necessary when the basic monster in the isolated location provided plenty of scares.
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
User avatar
22twain
Posts: 2650
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by 22twain »

Valuethinker wrote:The main innovation that I don't remember (not even in William Gibson's Neuromance of 1984) is the mobile phone.
The original Star Trek had communicators. But we've already gone past them by now. In the 23rd century, they're still using those crummy flip phones? :shock:
Help save endangered words! When you write "princiPLE", make sure you don't really mean "princiPAL"!
User avatar
telemark
Posts: 2803
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:35 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by telemark »

22twain wrote:
Valuethinker wrote:The main innovation that I don't remember (not even in William Gibson's Neuromance of 1984) is the mobile phone.
The original Star Trek had communicators. But we've already gone past them by now. In the 23rd century, they're still using those crummy flip phones? :shock:
There's a Heinlein juvenile, Between Planets, that opens with the main character riding his horse on a ranch in, I think, New Mexico, when his phone rings. Right away you knew you were in some strange future. At the time, anyway.

I remember seeing video phones demonstrated at the 1967 World's Fair in Montreal. The technology existed even then. What they didn't have was a network that could carry that kind of bandwidth.
User avatar
bengal22
Posts: 1919
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:20 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by bengal22 »

Valuethinker wrote:
Grogs wrote:I always feel like I should like this movie. I'm a major-league space nerd who grew up on the original Star Wars movies and Star Trek reruns. I also read all of the books in the series, and the sequel, 2010, is perhaps my favorite movie of all time. In fact, I saw 2010 when it came out in the theater when I was in junior high school. I took a date, and I was so engrossed in the movie I completely ignored her. :D

So, when I saw 2001 on Netflix a couple of months ago, I decided to watch it again. It had been nearly a decade, and I had forgotten a lot of it. After watching it, all I can say is, yuck! I think the point of the movie is pretty obvious - to show off the gee-whiz special effects. If you cut out all of the long, silent shots and compressed it down to just the scenes where something was happening, I believe the entire thing would fit in a one-hour TV slot even with time out for commercials. The 15-minute trip through the monolith at the end was the worst though. I highly suspect that the, um, "recreational enhancement" theory is correct on this one. For me, I got bored after about a minute and fast-forwarded to the end of it. That could have been forgiven, but the little bit of dialogue just wasn't enough to make me fee a connection to the characters. I could barely bring myself to care whether they made it or not at the end.
It looks much better on a big screen. I agree the psychedelic 60s had something to do with the popularity. When Fantasia came out it wasn't that much of a success, but when Disney rereleased it in the late 60s/ early 70s, it was recognized as a classic (by those with a penchant for recreational pharmaceuticals, as well ;-)).

There is a list of SF films that has held up well, Top 10 if you will, including

- The Day the Earth Stood Still
- Quatermass and The Pit
- Forbidden Planet - the scene with the attack on the forceshield fence *still* chills me
- Silent Running - the SFX, and it seems even more prescient now (last forests, being preserved in space)
- 2001
- Gattacca - one of the great "think piece" movies
- I would give some credit to A Scanner Darkly as a brilliant realization of Philip K Dick's imaginings (ending a bit weak, but that's common with Dick)
- Blade Runner - still packs an amazing impact on a big screen
- Planet of the Apes -still a movie just packed with ideas
- Terminator - as often, the original of a series has the gem of a great idea and realization
- Alien - that whole conception of what a real space industrial operation would look like
- Close Encounters
- ET - the story of a child alien from a superpowerful race lost amongst humans is hardly new (see Robert Heinlein The Star Beast) but superbly well executed

You also get a whole series of films that had some pretty good ideas or executions-- usually dystopian. The Thing. Escape from New York. Conquest of the Planet of the Apes. Escape from Planet of the Apes. I have even heard someone recommend Soylent Green ;-). Mad Max (ie Road Warrior 2). The 3 Verhoevens: Total Recall, Robocop and Starship Troopers (the satiric element in each is usually missed).

I haven't been able to compare The Omega Man with I Am Legend, the latter I think tried to get closer to the original Richard Matheson novel. (You also want to try to find the Theodore Cogswell short story The Masters, which is in his collection The Wall Around the World).

2010 I thought was good and worthy, rather than path breaking. Had to tie up the loose ends of the first one.

Star Wars and Star Trek I had mixed feelings about. The first ushered in a popcorn version of Science Fiction films, leading to 100 imitations and ripoffs, including some of the other movies in the SW series (and the latest one, basically a remake). So whilst SW and TESB were great, they led SF films into a dead end.

Star Trek kicked off an increasing deviation from The Original Series and then The Next Generation. Some of the movies were good (the Voyage Home the closest in tone to the original series) and some bad, but overall ST has now become another adventure series, lacking the spirit of the original.
Good list but please do not forget the all time classic SF movie - Logan's Run.
"Earn All You Can; Give All You Can; Save All You Can." .... John Wesley
User avatar
cheese_breath
Posts: 10090
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by cheese_breath »

bengal22 wrote: Good list but please do not forget the all time classic SF movie - Logan's Run.
And probably one of the all time worst was the 1980 Flash Gordon.
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
Valuethinker
Posts: 41790
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by Valuethinker »

bengal22 wrote:
Good list but please do not forget the all time classic SF movie - Logan's Run.
I am taking that as ironic? ;-).

What most British males have never recovered from is Jenny Agutter with her clothes off.

As a child actress she played one of the children in the classic The Railway Children which everyone saw. So *everyone* remembers her from that, and then as an adult actress she was in Logan's Run was disorienting.

The sets and clothes etc. of Logan's Run were excellent, the actual film was mehhh.... in my view, and I think the critics.

EDIT

I should add the TV series, short lived, had some fine writing by the likes of Harlan Ellison.

Along with Land of the Lost (a "kid's" show on Saturday morning) professional Science Fiction writers were brought to bear, in a way that I think only had happened before with The Twilight Zone (and a couple of Star Trek episodes ie City on the Edge of Forever).
Last edited by Valuethinker on Wed Apr 27, 2016 4:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Valuethinker
Posts: 41790
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by Valuethinker »

cheese_breath wrote:
bengal22 wrote: Good list but please do not forget the all time classic SF movie - Logan's Run.
And probably one of the all time worst was the 1980 Flash Gordon.
again, a film very long on irony, and which was deliberately OTT (Over The Top). Brian Blessed (the king of the winged men) is like that.

As a camp adaptation of the original (down to the excellent Queen soundtrack, which was again a knowing nod to their sexuality at a time when those things were less open) it comes across well. Adult themes, etc.

I wouldn't call it a serious SF film ;-) but it hasn't worn badly.
Last edited by Valuethinker on Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Valuethinker
Posts: 41790
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by Valuethinker »

cheese_breath wrote:
Valuethinker wrote: I remember thinking the John Carpenter version of The Thing, actually was a very good movie? Played the horror aspect more....
I'm not saying The Thing remake was bad. In fact I agree it was pretty good. I just didn't think a shape shifting monster was necessary when the basic monster in the isolated location provided plenty of scares.
Agreed. As Alien proved, of course-- the ultimate film of that genre.

Theodore Sturgeon's short story "Killdozer" was made into an OK (made for TV?) movie. About an alien that takes over a piece of construction machinery and starts killing the crew on a remote island (sounds goofy, but I remember it working as a concept).

I should probably mention some of the Michael Crichton movies:

- The Andromeda Strain is a classic

- Jurassic Park

- Westworld - Yul Brynner does a standout job as the robot run amok
Valuethinker
Posts: 41790
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by Valuethinker »

telemark wrote:
22twain wrote:
Valuethinker wrote:The main innovation that I don't remember (not even in William Gibson's Neuromance of 1984) is the mobile phone.
The original Star Trek had communicators. But we've already gone past them by now. In the 23rd century, they're still using those crummy flip phones? :shock:
There's a Heinlein juvenile, Between Planets, that opens with the main character riding his horse on a ranch in, I think, New Mexico, when his phone rings. Right away you knew you were in some strange future. At the time, anyway.

I remember seeing video phones demonstrated at the 1967 World's Fair in Montreal. The technology existed even then. What they didn't have was a network that could carry that kind of bandwidth.
Re Heinlein, good spot, thank you!

Heinlein had this way of writing "He stormed out, and the door dilated shut behind him". You've read another half paragraph before it occurs to you that doors don't dilate. His prose was quite crafted that way.

I loved Expo '67 but I was young enough not to remember any details ;-).
Valuethinker
Posts: 41790
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by Valuethinker »

telemark wrote:
22twain wrote:
Valuethinker wrote:The main innovation that I don't remember (not even in William Gibson's Neuromance of 1984) is the mobile phone.
The original Star Trek had communicators. But we've already gone past them by now. In the 23rd century, they're still using those crummy flip phones? :shock:
There's a Heinlein juvenile, Between Planets, that opens with the main character riding his horse on a ranch in, I think, New Mexico, when his phone rings. Right away you knew you were in some strange future. At the time, anyway.

I remember seeing video phones demonstrated at the 1967 World's Fair in Montreal. The technology existed even then. What they didn't have was a network that could carry that kind of bandwidth.
That reminds me also of Space Cadet, where the pilot says "that crater is the Des Moines crater". The context is never explained. Apparently it was a reference to an earlier version of the story, where the hero is forced to destroy his own home town to preserve world peace, which was felt too dark for a "juvenile" novel- -the last 3rd of the novel is a bolt on and that's why it is awkward (I've also wondered about the last section of "Farmer in the Sky" in that context-- where they find the alien walker).
Valuethinker
Posts: 41790
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by Valuethinker »

22twain wrote:
Valuethinker wrote:The main innovation that I don't remember (not even in William Gibson's Neuromance of 1984) is the mobile phone.
The original Star Trek had communicators. But we've already gone past them by now. In the 23rd century, they're still using those crummy flip phones? :shock:
But where are the SMS messages promising big lottery wins? ;-).

And how about voicemail hell?

The part about people getting killed by monsters whilst looking at their phones seems a pretty realistic view of modern streetlife ;-).
User avatar
cheese_breath
Posts: 10090
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by cheese_breath »

Very much agree on Silent Running. I would say it's one of my all-time favorites. The first time I saw the Valley Forge domes they reminded me of the biospheres on the Arc in the old Canadian TV series Starlost. I guess it should have been the other ways around since Silent Running was released first. If you aren't familiar with Starlost Wikipedia gives a good description. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starlost IMO a good concept but poorly executed, which probably explains why it only lasted for 16 episodes. It's link to the current discussion is Keir Dullea, one of the stars in 2001 is also the star in Starlost.
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
protagonist
Posts: 6822
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by protagonist »

Valuethinker wrote:
That reminds me also of Space Cadet, where the pilot says "that crater is the Des Moines crater". The context is never explained.
Maybe it was this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decorah_crater
Bad news for midwestern trilobites during the Middle Ordovician.
But I digress. Sorry, OP.
User avatar
cheese_breath
Posts: 10090
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by cheese_breath »

Thinking about the disappointing Starlost series got me thinking about what was my favorite sci-fi TV series. And the one that immediately came to mind was Firefly, sent to a premature death by Fox executives. But at least the full length Serenity movie gave us one last taste of the quality before the final end.
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
User avatar
bengal22
Posts: 1919
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:20 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by bengal22 »

Valuethinker wrote:
bengal22 wrote:
Good list but please do not forget the all time classic SF movie - Logan's Run.
I am taking that as ironic? ;-).

What most British males have never recovered from is Jenny Agutter with her clothes off.

As a child actress she played one of the children in the classic The Railway Children which everyone saw. So *everyone* remembers her from that, and then as an adult actress she was in Logan's Run was disorienting.

The sets and clothes etc. of Logan's Run were excellent, the actual film was mehhh.... in my view, and I think the critics.

EDIT

I should add the TV series, short lived, had some fine writing by the likes of Harlan Ellison.

Along with Land of the Lost (a "kid's" show on Saturday morning) professional Science Fiction writers were brought to bear, in a way that I think only had happened before with The Twilight Zone (and a couple of Star Trek episodes ie City on the Edge of Forever).
No irony intended. I always thought that Logan's Run was an underrated film. And because I am not British I much enjoyed the ice scene.
"Earn All You Can; Give All You Can; Save All You Can." .... John Wesley
Valuethinker
Posts: 41790
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by Valuethinker »

protagonist wrote:
Valuethinker wrote:
That reminds me also of Space Cadet, where the pilot says "that crater is the Des Moines crater". The context is never explained.
Maybe it was this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decorah_crater
Bad news for midwestern trilobites during the Middle Ordovician.
But I digress. Sorry, OP.
It's actually a reference to an atomic attack on Des Moines, and in an early draft of the novel, one which was committed by the Space Patrol itself.

The Patrol morphs from being the heroes in that book (and Farmer in the Sky) to being the agent of the Imperialist Earth against the rebelling lunar colonies in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (my candidate for his best novel).

Even in that latter novel, the Patrol is admired "Captain of PRS Randolph had guts. Even with his ship blinded, he went into the attack".
Valuethinker
Posts: 41790
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by Valuethinker »

bengal22 wrote:
Valuethinker wrote:
bengal22 wrote:
Good list but please do not forget the all time classic SF movie - Logan's Run.
I am taking that as ironic? ;-).

What most British males have never recovered from is Jenny Agutter with her clothes off.

As a child actress she played one of the children in the classic The Railway Children which everyone saw. So *everyone* remembers her from that, and then as an adult actress she was in Logan's Run was disorienting.

The sets and clothes etc. of Logan's Run were excellent, the actual film was mehhh.... in my view, and I think the critics.

EDIT

I should add the TV series, short lived, had some fine writing by the likes of Harlan Ellison.

Along with Land of the Lost (a "kid's" show on Saturday morning) professional Science Fiction writers were brought to bear, in a way that I think only had happened before with The Twilight Zone (and a couple of Star Trek episodes ie City on the Edge of Forever).
No irony intended. I always thought that Logan's Run was an underrated film. And because I am not British I much enjoyed the ice scene.
I didn't say we didn't enjoy the ice scene ;-). Imagine your childhood dream girl all grown up ;-). It's just the most memorable thing about the movie.

Whilst I thought the movie did a good job with sets and some of the set pieces (the plastic surgery lab) overall I thought its plot and characterization was weak. Whereas the TV show had some really good episodes.
Valuethinker
Posts: 41790
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by Valuethinker »

cheese_breath wrote:Very much agree on Silent Running. I would say it's one of my all-time favorites. The first time I saw the Valley Forge domes they reminded me of the biospheres on the Arc in the old Canadian TV series Starlost. I guess it should have been the other ways around since Silent Running was released first. If you aren't familiar with Starlost Wikipedia gives a good description. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starlost IMO a good concept but poorly executed, which probably explains why it only lasted for 16 episodes. It's link to the current discussion is Keir Dullea, one of the stars in 2001 is also the star in Starlost.

And Ben Bova, the technical adviser on Starlost, wrote a thinly described satire of his experiences called The Starcrossed. The studio execs thought the "launch window" (that Walter Koenig aka Ensign Chekov was using) was like a window on the ship that slid open ;-).

There were a couple of episodes of the Starlost that live with me still- Mr. Flint of Manchester, the arms producing dome.

Yes it was a flawed attempt at an SF show-- low budget, etc. In those days, Canada was not a Hollywood production hub.
User avatar
cheese_breath
Posts: 10090
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by cheese_breath »

Valuethinker wrote:... The studio execs thought the "launch window" (that Walter Koenig aka Ensign Chekov was using) was like a window on the ship that slid open ;-)....
DId the window have wipers in case the Arc ran into a solar storm? :D
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
User avatar
Kenkat
Posts: 6892
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:18 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by Kenkat »

22twain wrote:
Valuethinker wrote:The main innovation that I don't remember (not even in William Gibson's Neuromance of 1984) is the mobile phone.
The original Star Trek had communicators. But we've already gone past them by now. In the 23rd century, they're still using those crummy flip phones? :shock:
What they needed to do was to combine the communicator with the Tri-corder. Call it a smart communicator and stick an Apple picture on the back and they might have really been on to something.
User avatar
cheese_breath
Posts: 10090
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by cheese_breath »

kenschmidt wrote:
22twain wrote:
Valuethinker wrote:The main innovation that I don't remember (not even in William Gibson's Neuromance of 1984) is the mobile phone.
The original Star Trek had communicators. But we've already gone past them by now. In the 23rd century, they're still using those crummy flip phones? :shock:
What they needed to do was to combine the communicator with the Tri-corder. Call it a smart communicator and stick an Apple picture on the back and they might have really been on to something.
Add a phaser to that for protection in dark alleys and you might be onto something.
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
User avatar
22twain
Posts: 2650
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by 22twain »

cheese_breath wrote:
kenschmidt wrote:
22twain wrote:
Valuethinker wrote:The main innovation that I don't remember (not even in William Gibson's Neuromance of 1984) is the mobile phone.
The original Star Trek had communicators. But we've already gone past them by now. In the 23rd century, they're still using those crummy flip phones? :shock:
What they needed to do was to combine the communicator with the Tri-corder. Call it a smart communicator and stick an Apple picture on the back and they might have really been on to something.
Add a phaser to that for protection in dark alleys and you might be onto something.
Install a medical scanner and diagnosis app for Bones, and beef up the camera flash so it can double as a phaser.
Help save endangered words! When you write "princiPLE", make sure you don't really mean "princiPAL"!
Grogs
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:55 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by Grogs »

cheese_breath wrote:
cheese_breath wrote:
Grogs wrote:I always feel like I should like this movie. I'm a major-league space nerd who grew up on the original Star Wars movies and Star Trek reruns. I also read all of the books in the series, and the sequel, 2010, is perhaps my favorite movie of all time. In fact, I saw 2010 when it came out in the theater when I was in junior high school. I took a date, and I was so engrossed in the movie I completely ignored her. :D

So, when I saw 2001 on Netflix a couple of months ago, I decided to watch it again. It had been nearly a decade, and I had forgotten a lot of it. After watching it, all I can say is, yuck! I think the point of the movie is pretty obvious - to show off the gee-whiz special effects. If you cut out all of the long, silent shots and compressed it down to just the scenes where something was happening, I believe the entire thing would fit in a one-hour TV slot even with time out for commercials. The 15-minute trip through the monolith at the end was the worst though. I highly suspect that the, um, "recreational enhancement" theory is correct on this one. For me, I got bored after about a minute and fast-forwarded to the end of it. That could have been forgiven, but the little bit of dialogue just wasn't enough to make me fee a connection to the characters. I could barely bring myself to care whether they made it or not at the end.
I can appreciate how someone your age might get a little bored, but you need to understand the world of 1968 compared to when you grew up. The Apollo program was at it's height. We were only one year from landing on the moon, and dreams of going to other planets after that abounded. The story line fit perfectly with that culture. And here's a little tidbit you may not know. In 1968 IBM ruled the roost in the computer world. Did you notice each of the letters in IBM is one letter greater than the letters in HAL?
Just to elaborate a little more on my comment about the world of 1968... In 1968 there were no personal computers, pocket calculators or digital watches. Except for those working in the field there was very little understanding of computers among the general population. Long before the Terminator movies there were a few who thought computers were too smart and could constitute a threat to human control of the world. HAL taking control of the ship from the humans, whether intentionally or through system error played well on those fears. For another example one might be interested in watching Colossus:The Forbin Project, a 1970 movie about a supercomputer developed to protect America which becomes self-aware and collaborates with a similar Russian computer to take over the world.
Sorry, been a while since I had access to a computer to a proper keyboard to reply. I hate trying to type out more than a sentence or two on a touchscreen.

As for 2001: ASO, I totally understand the reasons you gave for why you liked it then. The problem for me is that so much of the movie was basically "Hey, look at these cool special effects! Aren't they cool! We're going to show scenes of the space station rotating for the next 10 minutes, and then we'll give you another 30 seconds of dialogue." In 1968 that worked because the special effects were amazing, but now a high school kid can probably duplicate them on his iPhone in 15 minutes. Since the special effects were such an integral part of the movie, it has aged badly IMO. By contrast, movies like The Day the Earth Stood Still, Forbidden Planet, or Silent Running are still great movies. Their effects haven't aged well either (and maybe weren't all that impressive to begin with), but since they have good plots, it's easy to ignore the cheesy effects.

BTW, on the HAL = IBM thing, here's what Arthur C. Clarke had to say in the acknowledgements of 3001: The Final Odyssey
For many years I have been embarrassed by the -- totally unfounded -- rumor that the name HAL was derived by one letter displacement from IBM. In an attempt to exorcise this computer-age myth, I even went to the trouble of getting Dr. Chandra, HAL's inventor, to deny it in 2010: Odyssey Two. However, I was recently assured that, far from being annoyed by the association, Big Blue is quite proud of it.
User avatar
telemark
Posts: 2803
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:35 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by telemark »

Grogs wrote:In 1968 that worked because the special effects were amazing, but now a high school kid can probably duplicate them on his iPhone in 15 minutes.
Or you can watch the real thing at

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream
User avatar
cheese_breath
Posts: 10090
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by cheese_breath »

Grogs wrote:
cheese_breath wrote:...
... it's easy to ignore the cheesy effects....
You're accusing cheese_breath of liking cheesy effects? :D :D :D
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
User avatar
bertilak
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:23 pm
Location: East of the Pecos, West of the Mississippi

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by bertilak »

Grogs wrote:We're going to show scenes of the space station rotating for the next 10 minutes ...
Some people would gladly spend that time listening to the music even without the space station, but the visuals did add a lot.
May neither drought nor rain nor blizzard disturb the joy juice in your gizzard. -- Squire Omar Barker (aka S.O.B.), the Cowboy Poet
User avatar
cheese_breath
Posts: 10090
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by cheese_breath »

Grogs wrote: As for 2001: ASO, I totally understand the reasons you gave for why you liked it then. The problem for me is that so much of the movie was basically "Hey, look at these cool special effects! Aren't they cool! We're going to show scenes of the space station rotating for the next 10 minutes, and then we'll give you another 30 seconds of dialogue." In 1968 that worked because the special effects were amazing, but now a high school kid can probably duplicate them on his iPhone in 15 minutes. Since the special effects were such an integral part of the movie, it has aged badly IMO. By contrast, movies like The Day the Earth Stood Still, Forbidden Planet, or Silent Running are still great movies. Their effects haven't aged well either (and maybe weren't all that impressive to begin with), but since they have good plots, it's easy to ignore the cheesy effects....
No, I don't think you do totally understand my reasons. OK, the special effects (except the ending psychedelics which lasted way too long) weren't bad for the time, but the real reason was the story. You say you grew up on Star Wars movies and Star Trek reruns. I was 16 years old when the USSR launched Sputnik 1. I remember the high school physics teacher taking us into the lab one day and we stood there mesmerized listening to this thing going beep, beep, beep as it passed over out location. For my generation, growing up in a time when space travel was just a fantasy to being just a year away from putting a man on the moon, a movie such as 2001 was wonderful. It combined our optimism for future advances in space with 'what if' type worries over a computer takeover. And the story didn't need to be told in 30 minutes or less. Taking a little more time to tell it only gave us more time to savor it. We didn't need thrill a minute effects to keep us interested.

But given all that I have to concede your point that it hasn't aged well due to the very conditions I described. It's appeal is to one generation, and our generations have different expectations.

edit: As another example of our generational differences. I happened upon Countdown, a 1968 James Caan / Robert Duvall movie about putting a man on the moon. It was really stupid, but I watched the whole thing anyway because it somehow I related to it. I doubt you would have watched 5 minutes, and I wouldn't blame you.
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
protagonist
Posts: 6822
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by protagonist »

cheese_breath wrote: For my generation, growing up in a time when space travel was just a fantasy to being just a year away from putting a man on the moon, a movie such as 2001 was wonderful. It combined our optimism for future advances in space with 'what if' type worries over a computer takeover. And the story didn't need to be told in 30 minutes or less. Taking a little more time to tell it only gave us more time to savor it. We didn't need thrill a minute effects to keep us interested.
I agree with Cheese.

The special effects were, in fact, way more sophisticated than anything else I can recall up to 1968. It was as revolutionary in that sense as Fantasia was in 1940, and yes, too much for many moviegoers to absorb and sit through (compare the level of sophistication with, say, the introduction to Vertigo, that wonderful Hitchcock movie, released just ten years earlier). It paved the way for the special effects in movies like Star Wars in the subsequent decade. Too long and self-indulgent? In retrospec, sure. But mind-blowingly different in 1968. It was a new art form. Kubrick was experimenting at a whole new level.

But more so, it was revolutionary for science fiction movies, and in particular American cinema, in its reliance on imagery and psychological depth in the absence of dialogue. Whether or not the intro sequence with the apes, the connection with the symbolism of the monolith, or the final "embryo" sequence had intended meaning, they provoked search for meaning in a way that may not have been seen before in American cinema. I recall countless discussions, analyses, etc between friends (and for the record, I was NOT stoned when I saw it...giggle). It also may have been the first sci-fi movie that made the general public take sci-fi seriously, and not just something targeted towards pubescent males at Sunday matinees (which is not to say there were not a lot of really good sci-fi movies prior to 2001, but even the best of them were geared and marketed to teenage boys- example, Forbidden Planet with "Robby the Robot", and little teen idol Ann Margaret running around wearing that tiny little thing).

There is not much market for the movie Metropolis these days either. Whether 2001 is as captivating to a 2016 audience is not the point, any more than whether you still hear Louis Armstrong tunes played at jam sessions. Ask any jazz musician.... Satchmo is still king. He changed music. And Kubrick changed sci-fi.
User avatar
cheese_breath
Posts: 10090
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by cheese_breath »

protagonist wrote:
cheese_breath wrote: For my generation, growing up in a time when space travel was just a fantasy to being just a year away from putting a man on the moon, a movie such as 2001 was wonderful. It combined our optimism for future advances in space with 'what if' type worries over a computer takeover. And the story didn't need to be told in 30 minutes or less. Taking a little more time to tell it only gave us more time to savor it. We didn't need thrill a minute effects to keep us interested.
I agree with Cheese.

The special effects were, in fact, way more sophisticated than anything else I can recall up to 1968. It was as revolutionary in that sense as Fantasia was in 1940, and yes, too much for many moviegoers to absorb and sit through (compare the level of sophistication with, say, the introduction to Vertigo, that wonderful Hitchcock movie, released just ten years earlier). It paved the way for the special effects in movies like Star Wars in the subsequent decade. Too long and self-indulgent? In retrospec, sure. But mind-blowingly different in 1968. It was a new art form.

But more so, it was revolutionary for science fiction movies, and in particular American cinema, in its reliance on imagery and psychological depth in the absence of dialogue. Whether or not the intro sequence with the apes, the connection with the symbolism of the monolith, or the final "embryo" sequence had intended meaning, they provoked search for meaning in a way that may not have been seen before in American cinema. I recall countless discussions, analyses, etc between friends (and for the record, I was NOT stoned when I saw it...giggle). It also may have been the first sci-fi movie that made the general public take sci-fi seriously, and not just something targeted towards pubescent males at Sunday matinees (which is not to say there were not a lot of really good sci-fi movies prior to 2001, but even the best of them were geared and marketed to teenage boys- example, Forbidden Planet with "Robby the Robot", and little teen idol Ann Margaret running around wearing that tiny little thing).

There is not much market for the movie Metropolis these days either. Whether 2001 is as captivating to a 2016 audience is not the point, any more than whether you still hear Louis Armstrong tunes played at jam sessions. Ask any jazz musician.... Satchmo is still king. He changed music. And Kubrick changed sci-fi.
Actually it was Anne Francis, but I do appreciate your comments and analysis. And the idea of HAL constantly monitoring the astronauts, sometimes even showing the view through his perspective gives one the creeps.
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
User avatar
bertilak
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:23 pm
Location: East of the Pecos, West of the Mississippi

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by bertilak »

cheese_breath wrote: Actually it was Anne Francis ...
Image

How could anyone forget?
  • Science fiction double feature
    Doctor X will build a creature
    See androids fighting Brad and Janet
    Anne Francis stars in Forbidden Planet
    At the late night, double feature, picture show
-- Science Fiction/double Feature lyrics from Rocky Horror Picture Show by ...

Richard O'Brien
Image
May neither drought nor rain nor blizzard disturb the joy juice in your gizzard. -- Squire Omar Barker (aka S.O.B.), the Cowboy Poet
protagonist
Posts: 6822
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by protagonist »

cheese_breath wrote: Actually it was Anne Francis, but I do appreciate your comments and analysis. And the idea of HAL constantly monitoring the astronauts, sometimes even showing the view through his perspective gives one the creeps.
Yep. But hey, Ann Francis, Ann-Margaret, what's the diff? (hoping you are laughing...)
[img]
https://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lehb ... o1_500.jpg[/img]

(Over 3000 posts and I still am clueless as to how to make images appear in them. Oh well....)
Last edited by protagonist on Mon May 02, 2016 10:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
cheese_breath
Posts: 10090
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by cheese_breath »

protagonist wrote:
cheese_breath wrote: Actually it was Anne Francis, but I do appreciate your comments and analysis. And the idea of HAL constantly monitoring the astronauts, sometimes even showing the view through his perspective gives one the creeps.
Yep. But hey, Ann Francis, Ann-Margaret, what's the diff? (hoping you are laughing...)

https://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lehb ... o1_500.jpg
Yes. Laughing. :D :D :D
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
User avatar
bertilak
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:23 pm
Location: East of the Pecos, West of the Mississippi

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by bertilak »

protagonist wrote:https://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lehb ... o1_500.jpg

(Over 3000 posts and I still am clueless as to how to make images appear in them. Oh well....)
Just look at my post above. (Click on the big double quote mark at upper right:
Image
May neither drought nor rain nor blizzard disturb the joy juice in your gizzard. -- Squire Omar Barker (aka S.O.B.), the Cowboy Poet
protagonist
Posts: 6822
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by protagonist »

bertilak wrote:
protagonist wrote:https://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lehb ... o1_500.jpg

(Over 3000 posts and I still am clueless as to how to make images appear in them. Oh well....)
Just look at my post above. (Click on the big double quote mark at upper right:
Image
(ummm) I did, and to no avail (check out my edited version in above post).
I guess I'm just not smart enough. Oh well.
Thanks for trying, Bert. (smile...)
User avatar
bertilak
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:23 pm
Location: East of the Pecos, West of the Mississippi

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by bertilak »

protagonist wrote:
bertilak wrote:
protagonist wrote:https://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lehb ... o1_500.jpg

(Over 3000 posts and I still am clueless as to how to make images appear in them. Oh well....)
Just look at my post above. (Click on the big double quote mark at upper right:
Image
(ummm) I did, and to no avail (check out my edited version in above post).
I guess I'm just not smart enough. Oh well.
Thanks for trying, Bert. (smile...)
Well, you have two jpg's linked above. The first one didn't work because there is no Image tag around it. The second one did work because it does have the Image tag.
May neither drought nor rain nor blizzard disturb the joy juice in your gizzard. -- Squire Omar Barker (aka S.O.B.), the Cowboy Poet
protagonist
Posts: 6822
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by protagonist »

bertilak wrote:
protagonist wrote:
bertilak wrote:
protagonist wrote:https://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lehb ... o1_500.jpg

(Over 3000 posts and I still am clueless as to how to make images appear in them. Oh well....)
Just look at my post above. (Click on the big double quote mark at upper right:
Image
(ummm) I did, and to no avail (check out my edited version in above post).
I guess I'm just not smart enough. Oh well.
Thanks for trying, Bert. (smile...)
Well, you have two jpg's linked above. The first one didn't work because there is no Image tag around it. The second one did work because it does have the Image tag.
Please see pm
User avatar
cheese_breath
Posts: 10090
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by cheese_breath »

protagonist wrote:... which is not to say there were not a lot of really good sci-fi movies prior to 2001, but even the best of them were geared and marketed to teenage boys- example, Forbidden Planet with "Robby the Robot"...
Robby became quite a celebrity and appeared on a number of different TV shows after Forbidden Planet. Here's a picture of Robby facing off against the Robinson's robot on Lost in Space.

Image
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
User avatar
22twain
Posts: 2650
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by 22twain »

bertilak wrote:Some people would gladly spend that time listening to the music even without the space station, but the visuals did add a lot.
'2001' was one of the things that got me started on classical music. When I saw it in the theater the first time, I sat through the entire closing credits just to listen to Strauss's Blue Danube again. One of my first classical albums was the '2001' soundtrack.

It did warp my musical tastes a bit. Many years later I ended up buying all 7 (or so) CDs of Sony's György Ligeti edition.
Help save endangered words! When you write "princiPLE", make sure you don't really mean "princiPAL"!
User avatar
bertilak
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:23 pm
Location: East of the Pecos, West of the Mississippi

Re: Stanley Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey

Post by bertilak »

22twain wrote:
bertilak wrote:Some people would gladly spend that time listening to the music even without the space station, but the visuals did add a lot.
'2001' was one of the things that got me started on classical music. When I saw it in the theater the first time, I sat through the entire closing credits just to listen to Strauss's Blue Danube again. One of my first classical albums was the '2001' soundtrack.

It did warp my musical tastes a bit. Many years later I ended up buying all 7 (or so) CDs of Sony's György Ligeti edition.
Clockwork Orange had a similar effect on me.

Two favorites from Clockwork Orange: Beethoven's #9 2nd movement (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPq1tnrH_eM) and Rossini's Thieving Magpie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ceh0-42FXg0). After one hears these while watching the movie they will always have special meaning -- there will be blood! (To steal a movie title)
Last edited by bertilak on Tue May 03, 2016 9:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
May neither drought nor rain nor blizzard disturb the joy juice in your gizzard. -- Squire Omar Barker (aka S.O.B.), the Cowboy Poet
Post Reply