Follow The Leader: Episode 78: 2001 A Space Conversation!
Martinex1: Welcome to another wonderful Summer day with BitBA! Today we Follow the Leader...so get us started on another rampaging dialogue about all things from the Bronze Age! Who will get us started?
16 comments:
Anonymous
said...
It's the 50th anniversary of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY so...
...2001: sci-fi masterpiece or boring and over-rated?
For all that Kubrick brought to the film, I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. The aesthetic of the prehistoric and its hominids seem as sculpted and artificial as the interplanetary spacecraft later in the film. Coupled with the minimalist single perspective shots and sparse dialogue, I think once could say that the artifice of it all almost overplays its hand, if artifice weren't the actual subject of the film (as I take it). I do feel it lags considerably in parts, but I can't begrudge the artistry of the whole, and its legacy on the genre.
Bref, neither a masterpiece, nor over-rated but, yeah, it does get kind of boring.
Thanks for the anniversary note, question, and cheers, Colin!
Colin. Good one. This movie has plagued me like the book Dune. I've tried to watch/ read but it never grabs hold of me so I stop watching/ reading maybe 20% in each time. Sorry buddy! Hay are you celebrating England's winning n over Tunisia yesterday?
When I was, like, 14 I thought it was the coolest thing ever ever ever, because. . . I think because I "thought" I was supposed to think that, y'know? That was right at the height of the "Gods From Space/Chariots of the Gods" craze (which 2001 itself probably had a hand in initiating), and it fed right into that mania. That sense of there being a MUCH larger guiding influence out there that didn't actually fall under the heading of being a religion or supernatural force-- BIG astrophysics, as it were. And then the whole psychedelic transport sequence near the end-- as with so much psychedelia, there was the assumption that it had deep, deep meaning and significance. . . even if you yourself really couldn't grasp it.
Watched it again on Christmas of '88--- and found it to be SO much less enjoyable than I'd remembered. I can certainly see how the space footage coupled with that great soundtrack in a big theater with a big sound system would be GREAT spectacle on its own, sure--- but that's not the same as story-telling. I still enjoyed the pre-historic sequence, and I'll ALWAYS love HAL's story and final scene--- but this movie is. . . too. . . flippin'. . . slow. It is comically slow. It is MST3K-worthy slow. That one shot of the little shuttle crossing the screen from extreme left to extreme right? Empires have risen and fallen in the time that trip takes. I hit fast-forward for its journey the last time, and it STILL took an eternity!
Same story with that later transport sequence I mentioned. It. . . doesn't . . . advance. . .the. . . plot. It's simply a long. . . sustained. . .single effect. An egregious cinematic self-indulgence, says HB.
(I can take the blowback on this, teammates-- go ahead and give me the business---_
I haven't seen the movie in a really long time, but I have a digital copy and just scanned through it and I must say, the production value, the visuals, the colors, the camera - its all still absolutely stunning and fantastic. I has aged very well!
But still I am not inclined to watch the whole movie again. It is slow, more philosophic and almost no "action" at all. Maybe I am spoiled by the internet age and I am not patient enough anymore. But just for the visuals I would say it is a definite Sci-Fi classic!
A side topic: I am still waiting for a paperback reprint of Jack Kirby's " 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY" comic book series. It is the one MARVEL piece of Kirby that is not reprinted because of legal issues regarding the rights. But I've read that they are still working on a solution with the heirs of Kubrick. It is one of the last pieces I need for my Jack Kirby collection.
I managed to get a digital copy of the books, so if anyone was also looking for it, I can send you those at least.
It's been a long time since I saw it, but I never really got into it; too cerebral (or impenetrable) to me. I guess I like more adventurous SF like Star Wars/Trek.
Mike W-- Honestly, the book is much more coherent. . . I remember liking the book quite a lot.
Chim-- Are you referring to the 2001 Marvel Treasury Edition? I. . . think I have the original, actually. Is it hard to find? Wait-- Hunh, nothing on Amazon, but ranges from $8 to (!!!!)$145 on Ebay. Dude-- snatch that cheap on up! Do you also have the comic book series that followed?
The movie really bowled me over the first time I saw it. Slow, yes, but I was captivated by the magnitude of it all. More recent viewings have been enjoyable, but I do notice the measured pacing now. Going to echo HB in mentioning the book. I found the book engrossing,and got more out of watching the film after reading it.
I recently listened to a radio documentary about the 50th anniversary of 2001: A Space Odyssey and the novel was serialized in ten parts, also on the radio (BBC Radio 4). In the book the ship travels to Saturn, not Jupiter as in the film. I've read the three sequels - 2010, 2061 and 3001.
Charlie, I have zero interest in football or the World Cup as I recently mentioned on Steve Does Comics :)
Humanbelly - I have the following 10-part comic series as a digital version (*.cbr). I do not have the preceding Treasury Edition. Sales on ebay are too expensive, especially with the costly postage for US-Germany post. And a lot of sellers do not even ship to Germany but only to US/Canada.
I love it and find its bewildering developments wonderfully confusing and effective at evoking the awe necessary to convey the smallness of human life and Earth in the scope of things.
By today's standards "2001 ASO" is a little slow, and may even be considered somewhat boring at times, but when it was released it was light years (no pun intended) ahead of its time. The sets and special effects hold up very well today. (At least as well as the original Star Wars trilogy, if not better).
Also, in terms of story, it may well be considered the first modern sci-fi space thriller. Because when all is said and done (putting aside all the heady "high concept" ideas) the movie is basically about a sentient computer that goes nuts and starts killing people. I'm sure movies like "Alien" were very much inspired by 2001.
If you can't say anything else good about the film, you have to admit that H.A.L. is still one of the most iconic (and scariest) sci-fi movie villains of all time.
For me, it's a highly compelling experience up until the final ten minutes, at which point it starts to feel like a student film that's had too much money thrown at it.
No argument on your last point at all, there, William. He is perfectly realized in the film, IMO. In fact, I used HAL's breakdown passage/scene from the novel for a college Interpretive Reading assignment, and it practically performed itself. He's a study in minimalism, focus, and quiet purpose. And then of sentient demise. Man. The classic "villain" that never, ever considered that they might be one.
And wow, how could I ever have missed that HAL and Mother (from ALIEN) had essentially the same primary mission goal? "Go contact/get the thing out there in space. Crew is ultimately expendable. . . "
Chim-- argh, yeah, you being in Germany does kinda clobber your options, doesn't it? Welp, if you ever hit the U.S. of A. . . .
I've got a slightly different question - when do you guys post this thread such that Colin Jones is always the first one to get in with a question? I've only managed to get here once in time to find that he hadn't, and was so gobsmacked that I forgot completely the question I'd been saving up should I mange to be first.
As for 2001 it's definitely a film that needs to be seen upon the big screen - and you people have got it wrong, it's not that it's slow, it's just that subsequent films have become fast. Last saw it a screening a couple of years back that featured a live Q & A with Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood, and enjoyed it more than ever.
But I'm always taken back to my ninth birthday when it premiered, and my older sister gave me a choice of birthday present: go and see 2001, or a Snoopy book. You can probably guess which one I picked (and I've never regretted my choice :-))
16 comments:
It's the 50th anniversary of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY so...
...2001: sci-fi masterpiece or boring and over-rated?
For all that Kubrick brought to the film, I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. The aesthetic of the prehistoric and its hominids seem as sculpted and artificial as the interplanetary spacecraft later in the film. Coupled with the minimalist single perspective shots and sparse dialogue, I think once could say that the artifice of it all almost overplays its hand, if artifice weren't the actual subject of the film (as I take it). I do feel it lags considerably in parts, but I can't begrudge the artistry of the whole, and its legacy on the genre.
Bref, neither a masterpiece, nor over-rated but, yeah, it does get kind of boring.
Thanks for the anniversary note, question, and cheers, Colin!
Colin. Good one. This movie has plagued me like the book Dune. I've tried to watch/ read but it never grabs hold of me so I stop watching/ reading maybe 20% in each time. Sorry buddy! Hay are you celebrating England's winning n over Tunisia yesterday?
On the big screen, it's a masterpiece. If you've only seen it on TV, I can understand why you'd think it was overrated.
I was fortunate enough to catch a 70MM print of 2001 at the American Film Institute back in 2003, I gained a new appreciation of the movie.
When I was, like, 14 I thought it was the coolest thing ever ever ever, because. . . I think because I "thought" I was supposed to think that, y'know? That was right at the height of the "Gods From Space/Chariots of the Gods" craze (which 2001 itself probably had a hand in initiating), and it fed right into that mania. That sense of there being a MUCH larger guiding influence out there that didn't actually fall under the heading of being a religion or supernatural force-- BIG astrophysics, as it were. And then the whole psychedelic transport sequence near the end-- as with so much psychedelia, there was the assumption that it had deep, deep meaning and significance. . . even if you yourself really couldn't grasp it.
Watched it again on Christmas of '88--- and found it to be SO much less enjoyable than I'd remembered. I can certainly see how the space footage coupled with that great soundtrack in a big theater with a big sound system would be GREAT spectacle on its own, sure--- but that's not the same as story-telling. I still enjoyed the pre-historic sequence, and I'll ALWAYS love HAL's story and final scene--- but this movie is. . . too. . . flippin'. . . slow. It is comically slow. It is MST3K-worthy slow. That one shot of the little shuttle crossing the screen from extreme left to extreme right? Empires have risen and fallen in the time that trip takes. I hit fast-forward for its journey the last time, and it STILL took an eternity!
Same story with that later transport sequence I mentioned. It. . . doesn't . . . advance. . .the. . . plot. It's simply a long. . . sustained. . .single effect. An egregious cinematic self-indulgence, says HB.
(I can take the blowback on this, teammates-- go ahead and give me the business---_
HB
I haven't seen the movie in a really long time, but I have a digital copy and just scanned through it and I must say, the production value, the visuals, the colors, the camera - its all still absolutely stunning and fantastic. I has aged very well!
But still I am not inclined to watch the whole movie again. It is slow, more philosophic and almost no "action" at all. Maybe I am spoiled by the internet age and I am not patient enough anymore. But just for the visuals I would say it is a definite Sci-Fi classic!
A side topic: I am still waiting for a paperback reprint of Jack Kirby's " 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY" comic book series. It is the one MARVEL piece of Kirby that is not reprinted because of legal issues regarding the rights. But I've read that they are still working on a solution with the heirs of Kubrick. It is one of the last pieces I need for my Jack Kirby collection.
I managed to get a digital copy of the books, so if anyone was also looking for it, I can send you those at least.
http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_Vol_1
It's been a long time since I saw it, but I never really got into it; too cerebral (or impenetrable) to me. I guess I like more adventurous SF like Star Wars/Trek.
Mike W-- Honestly, the book is much more coherent. . . I remember liking the book quite a lot.
Chim-- Are you referring to the 2001 Marvel Treasury Edition? I. . . think I have the original, actually. Is it hard to find? Wait-- Hunh, nothing on Amazon, but ranges from $8 to (!!!!)$145 on Ebay. Dude-- snatch that cheap on up! Do you also have the comic book series that followed?
HB
The movie really bowled me over the first time I saw it. Slow, yes, but I was captivated by the magnitude of it all. More recent viewings have been enjoyable, but I do notice the measured pacing now. Going to echo HB in mentioning the book. I found the book engrossing,and got more out of watching the film after reading it.
I recently listened to a radio documentary about the 50th anniversary of 2001: A Space Odyssey and the novel was serialized in ten parts, also on the radio (BBC Radio 4). In the book the ship travels to Saturn, not Jupiter as in the film. I've read the three sequels - 2010, 2061 and 3001.
Charlie, I have zero interest in football or the World Cup as I recently mentioned on Steve Does Comics :)
Humanbelly - I have the following 10-part comic series as a digital version (*.cbr). I do not have the preceding Treasury Edition. Sales on ebay are too expensive, especially with the costly postage for US-Germany post. And a lot of sellers do not even ship to Germany but only to US/Canada.
I love it and find its bewildering developments wonderfully confusing and effective at evoking the awe necessary to convey the smallness of human life and Earth in the scope of things.
By today's standards "2001 ASO" is a little slow, and may even be considered somewhat boring at times, but when it was released it was light years (no pun intended) ahead of its time. The sets and special effects hold up very well today. (At least as well as the original Star Wars trilogy, if not better).
Also, in terms of story, it may well be considered the first modern sci-fi space thriller. Because when all is said and done (putting aside all the heady "high concept" ideas) the movie is basically about a sentient computer that goes nuts and starts killing people. I'm sure movies like "Alien" were very much inspired by 2001.
If you can't say anything else good about the film, you have to admit that H.A.L. is still one of the most iconic (and scariest) sci-fi movie villains of all time.
For me, it's a highly compelling experience up until the final ten minutes, at which point it starts to feel like a student film that's had too much money thrown at it.
No argument on your last point at all, there, William. He is perfectly realized in the film, IMO. In fact, I used HAL's breakdown passage/scene from the novel for a college Interpretive Reading assignment, and it practically performed itself. He's a study in minimalism, focus, and quiet purpose. And then of sentient demise. Man. The classic "villain" that never, ever considered that they might be one.
And wow, how could I ever have missed that HAL and Mother (from ALIEN) had essentially the same primary mission goal? "Go contact/get the thing out there in space. Crew is ultimately expendable. . . "
Chim-- argh, yeah, you being in Germany does kinda clobber your options, doesn't it? Welp, if you ever hit the U.S. of A. . . .
HB
I've got a slightly different question - when do you guys post this thread such that Colin Jones is always the first one to get in with a question? I've only managed to get here once in time to find that he hadn't, and was so gobsmacked that I forgot completely the question I'd been saving up should I mange to be first.
As for 2001 it's definitely a film that needs to be seen upon the big screen - and you people have got it wrong, it's not that it's slow, it's just that subsequent films have become fast. Last saw it a screening a couple of years back that featured a live Q & A with Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood, and enjoyed it more than ever.
But I'm always taken back to my ninth birthday when it premiered, and my older sister gave me a choice of birthday present: go and see 2001, or a Snoopy book. You can probably guess which one I picked (and I've never regretted my choice :-))
Post a Comment