• 2001: A Space Odyssey
    122 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Rusty100;26706974]i imagine the blu-ray was made from the highest available print, why not be happy with that?[/QUOTE] most blu-rays of old films are made from multiple films, like 10 different prints. They compare each frame and judge which one the best one is out of all available prints, and splice the absolute best ones together in to one film.
[QUOTE=Publius;26650042]The first time I saw this I thought it was very long, but when I watched it again recently I felt like it was over in minutes. Weird. Love it though.[/QUOTE] its a strange love, but love nether the less
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;26709674] Apparently it's his favorite movie. And afterwords, we went through scene by scene to analyze the movie. And the analyzing was being done by him. TOM FUCKING HANKS. [editline]15th December 2010[/editline] Oh yeah, and there was behind the scenes footage. And Six people from the movie's production were interviewed on stage. It took like six goddamned hours, but holy fuck was it the best thing in the universe.[/QUOTE] I hate you.
I'm pissed that he didn't say "Oh my god, it's full of stars!" in the movie. I still don't know what his reaction was to it scared, amazed, etc.
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;26729640]I'm pissed that he didn't say "Oh my god, it's full of stars!" in the movie. I still don't know what his reaction was to it scared, amazed, etc.[/QUOTE] I too cannot tell the difference between scared and amazed. Looks like i'll never know what my girlfriend REALLY thinks.
[QUOTE=MisterLANCE;26728914]most blu-rays of old films are made from multiple films, like 10 different prints. They compare each frame and judge which one the best one is out of all available prints, and splice the absolute best ones together in to one film.[/QUOTE] even better
Yeah, nice how it changes from visual orchestral performance to a critical thinking movie. Reminds me of Phantavision for the PS2. Space levels were beautifull. :3
The first time I,ve seen this film, it was boring, watched again, a bit weird but good.
[QUOTE=mrryanchisholm;26633475]You didn't like Eyes Wide Shut? A Clockwork Orange? Not even Full Metal Jacket? You monster.[/QUOTE] I didn't care too much for a Clockwork Orange. Everything else he's done that I've seen has been amazing though.
[QUOTE=Mac2468;26731859]I didn't care too much for a Clockwork Orange. Everything else he's done that I've seen has been amazing though.[/QUOTE] Watch it again.
[QUOTE=mrryanchisholm;26660283]I always felt it was a bit long. Especially the end scenes that didn't make sense to me. Nearly all the shots seemed unnecessarily long.[/QUOTE] It's style, you can't do anything about it. Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Hitchcock and many more are known for their long takes. You have to get used to it to truly enjoy their movies. Talking about not making sense, you have to watch it carefuly and think until your brain melts, only this way you will understand the mind of the master.
Long shots because he has more to say than Michael Bay with his FAST SHOTS! Plus more is going on or he's giving you time think thing over a little, so I'd say pay attention more if your complaint on clockwork orange is that the scenes are too long cause they're fucking interesting.
If you actually read the book it has very little dialogue. The film, in an effort to stay true to the book, added as little dialogue as possible. The only issue being, of course, that every film is mostly made up of dialogue... Or violence and sex.
Why do people keep thinking it's an adaptation? The novel was adapted from the screenplay that Clarke himself wrote. Other way around. [editline]17th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=TheDiddler;26736403]Long shots because he has more to say than Michael Bay with his FAST SHOTS! Plus more is going on or he's giving you time think thing over a little, so I'd say pay attention more if your complaint on clockwork orange is that the scenes are too long cause they're fucking interesting.[/QUOTE] Once you watch it in 70mm it makes even more sense. You can't see it if you see it on VHS on a 12" fag TV, but with the extreme clarity of 70mm, something like the few conversation scenes on the space wheel for example- it literally looks as if they are actually standing right in front of you in the room. Fast cuts and massive camera moves would completely destroy that. Films aren't meant to be seen on TV. Well, they didn't use to anyway.
[B]“I intended the film to be an intensely subjective experience that reaches the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does; to ‘explain’ a Beethoven symphony would be to emasculate it by erecting an artificial barrier between conception and appreciation.” Stanley Kubrick, on 2001 [/B]
[QUOTE=BmB;26755803]Why do people keep thinking it's an adaptation? The novel was adapted from the screenplay that Kubrick and Clarke wrote. Other way around.[/QUOTE] Fixed, Clarke didn't write the entire script. In fact, Kubrick had more influence in the film's script while Clarke just added in stuff to his novel.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;26717504]I have a better idea. Also, the others (2010, 2061 and 3001) are only in book form.[/QUOTE] 2010 was made into a movie, called 2010: The Year We Make Contact. It's less true to the book than the 2001 movie was to the book, and is more of a conventional film (more dialogue). It's not as memorable as 2001, but I think it's still a pretty good movie.
2001 the book and the movie where pretty much made at the same time.
I watched this film yesterday, and I also wanted to like it. Usually something that is so highly revered is something that I would like. But I fucking hated it. It was slow as freeze dried fuck, and terribly boring at times, and on top of all that, it baffles me with [sp]20 minutes of neon colored landscapes and a giant fetus orbiting earth.[/sp] Also, the entire portion of the film about the jupiter mission was deeply depressing, although it was the one part that I really liked and thought was an interesting story with interesting themes. Besides that portion of the film, however, I hated it and didn't know what any of it meant. After I watched it I scoured wikipedia and it still seemed stupid and overrated. As for other Kubrick movies, A Clockwork Orange was alright and Full Metal Jacket was really good.
[QUOTE=rivershark;26768510]I watched this film yesterday, and I also wanted to like it. Usually something that is so highly revered is something that I would like. But I fucking hated it. It was slow as freeze dried fuck, and terribly boring at times, and on top of all that, it baffles me with [sp]20 minutes of neon colored landscapes and a giant fetus orbiting earth.[/sp] Also, the entire portion of the film about the jupiter mission was deeply depressing, although it was the one part that I really liked and thought was an interesting story with interesting themes. Besides that portion of the film, however, I hated it and didn't know what any of it meant. After I watched it I scoured wikipedia and it still seemed stupid and overrated. As for other Kubrick movies, A Clockwork Orange was alright and Full Metal Jacket was really good.[/QUOTE] Wrong mindset then, in the 'boring' scenes did you not notice the minute and very exact details embedded in each scene ?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28score%29[/url] So... has anyone else heard this? I'm listening to it right now, quite a brilliant score and it would be cool to see a version of the film with this music put in.
[QUOTE=Pops;26766688]Fixed, Clarke didn't write the entire script. In fact, Kubrick had more influence in the film's script while Clarke just added in stuff to his novel.[/QUOTE] Ah right, wasn't clear on the details surrounding that.
what are your thoughts on this poster i am making [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1482927/Posters/2001%20poster%20semi%20final.png[/img]
Its nice.
thank u :)
Looks great. Whats the poster for, anyway? Just photoshop practice, or..?
[QUOTE=mrryanchisholm;26633475]You didn't like Eyes Wide Shut? A Clockwork Orange? Not even Full Metal Jacket? You monster.[/QUOTE] You didn't think 2001 was great in any way? [b]You[/b] Monster :smug:
[QUOTE=Akayz;26799349]You didn't think 2001 was great in any way? [b]You[/b] Monster :smug:[/QUOTE] I thought it was great, but in a weird way. I thought the movie was just "good", but I think it had so many lovable scenes like "The Dawn Of Man", [sp] HAL's death scene [/sp] and the space trip.
[QUOTE=mrryanchisholm;26800626]I thought it was great, but in a weird way. I thought the movie was just "good", but I think it had so many lovable scenes like "The Dawn Of Man", [sp] HAL's death scene [/sp] and the space trip.[/QUOTE] At least it wouldn't be your first Kubrick movie to see. Otherwise your head would've blown off :v: In all fairness, more thought has to be put on it as a whole. Think artistic wise, its all a bit obvious to highlight drama. [editline]19th December 2010[/editline] Patience and repeat viewings is the key. It will grow on you.
[QUOTE=Akayz;26800793]At least it wouldn't be your first Kubrick movie to see. Otherwise your head would've blown off :v: In all fairness, more thought has to be put on it as a whole. Think artistic wise, its all a bit obvious to highlight drama.[/QUOTE] This actually was my first Kubrick movie. That might be why I'm so partial towards it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.