Apollo 8 orbited the moon in late Dec. 1968, and the Mercury and Gemini programs in the US and various flight programs in the USSR had already given the world a look at the Earth from space, at least from lower orbits.
2001 a Space Odyssey
- Thread starter pustelniakr
- Start date
Apollo 8 orbited the moon in late Dec. 1968, and the Mercury and Gemini programs in the US and various flight programs in the USSR had already given the world a look at the Earth from space, at least from lower orbits.
guiller
Toscaninichus Australis
One of the best Science Fiction movies ever made, IMHO. I would include it in my short list along Solaris and Stalker by Tarkovsky and Alien by R. Scott. I watch any of these movies once in a while and they never seem old or outdated to me. The Tarkovsky films have a special flavor close to poetry, in a similar way as Bradbury brought to literature.
50nstillhifi
Super Member
Movie is good.... the soundtrack.... phenomenal!
Would be interesting to see those early apes (us guys... or is that gals?
).... beating those sticks in digitally re-mastered screen and surround sound 5.1 Dolby ))) STEREO ((( 
Would be interesting to see those early apes (us guys... or is that gals?
).... beating those sticks in digitally re-mastered screen and surround sound 5.1 Dolby ))) STEREO (((
guiller
Toscaninichus Australis
The way I see Solaris is a twist of the story of Forbidden Planet (which is, on turn, based on The Tempest by Shakespeare). In Forbidden Planet there is a machine that allows the uncosciusness of thinking creatures to become real, and in Solaris it is a living planet by itself which does that. In this movie, what comes out are not monsters but desires, nightmares, contradictions and some other effects that materialize or seem so (perception is also put into discussion). I love this film even more with every new rewatching of it.
guiller
Toscaninichus Australis
Movie is good.... the soundtrack.... phenomenal!
Would be interesting to see those early apes (us guys... or is that gals?
I agree. I was a teenager when I watched it for the first time and since then fell in love with the music by Ligeti (I´m now a big fan of his music). Most of the other classical music I was already familiar with (R. Strauss, J. Strauss Jr, Kachaturian).
I saw it down in the Loop in it's roadshow release in phony Cinerama, I was high as a kite. The opening scene with the conjunction was one of those "oh wow" moments. I used to like Kubrick pictures a great deal, it was cool to among heads, but now I think he was a miserable misanthropic prick and dislike several of his pictures I once liked. But I still like 2001.
Last edited:
Gyorgy Ligeti additions to the 2001 sound track are fantastic. Ligeti liked the fact his music was included however he was pissed off that Kubrick did not obtain full copyright clearance to use it and then with out Ligeti's consent remixed some of it. This I can understand. But what really put his panties in a bunch was they included his music with other composers on the movies soundtrack. Kubrick made it all right in the end however at least money wise. .
mhardy6647
Lunatic Member
Yup.
Pointless aside: for whatever reason, on clear nights with a just-past-new moon, we get evening skies here that are, to me at any rate, evocative of the skies in The Dawn of Man scenes in 2001.
Without the conjunction, of course.
mhardy6647
Lunatic Member
As a surprisingly forum-appropriate yet off-topic aside, I'm sure all 2001 aficionados know that Kubrick commissioned a de novo film score, delivered by Alex North, which he ultimately discarded (perhaps apropos of Mr. Brennan's penile comment above).
Some years back, that score was released; I'd encourage 2001 fanboys/completists to give it a listen.
Some years back, that score was released; I'd encourage 2001 fanboys/completists to give it a listen.
I really enjoyed the film when it opened. I've seen it a half dozen times over the years, and pieces of it much more ...
But science has moved forward, moviemaking has moved forward, special effects have moved forward.
And it still makes its point at a glacial pace ...
Its hard for me to watch it now, nearly 50 years on ...
But science has moved forward, moviemaking has moved forward, special effects have moved forward.
And it still makes its point at a glacial pace ...
Its hard for me to watch it now, nearly 50 years on ...
mhardy6647
Lunatic Member
The glacial pace was , I believe, a very deliberate choice by the filmmaker.
Not a lot of explosions, nor even funny aliens.
I do feel bad for Kubrick's lack of foresight in imagining that Pan Am and IBM (umm... HAL) would still be iconic brands in the 21st Century.
oops.
Not a lot of explosions, nor even funny aliens.
I do feel bad for Kubrick's lack of foresight in imagining that Pan Am and IBM (umm... HAL) would still be iconic brands in the 21st Century.
oops.
mhardy6647
Lunatic Member
y'all do know the subtle 
joke at IBM's expense in HALs name, yes?
joke at IBM's expense in HALs name, yes?
^^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^^
North was doing well writing scores for big format epic pictures, having written scores for Spartacus, Cleopatra ( a vastly underrated movie), The Agony and the Ecstasy and Cheyenne Autumn. I didn't know a recording of his 2001 score was available.
mhardy6647
Lunatic Member
Zoroastrianism is an ancient monotheistic religion; perhaps the oldest (I am too lazy to actually look it up).
Yeah, I forgot the Bell System videophone.
I do remember the zero-g toilet instructions -- "the film's only intentional joke"
As to the book "vs." the movie; the book was, as I recall, written after the movie -- although based on the early intention to have the extra-terrestrial setting to be Saturn rather than Jupiter (them rings, you know; a bleedin' sign, they are, eh what?). I like the book, but it's cut from a very different cloth than the movie.
Also, as to an earlier comment about 1968 and what we did or didn't "know" about space -- don't forget that the movie was in production for a long, long time (most of the sixties, again, if memory serves).
Another movie hjames probably doesn't like is Silent Running, made by 2001 special effects maven Douglas Trumbull and starring the weird, talented Bruce Dern.
Silent Running does tackle Saturn, and introduces us, literally, to the movie forebears of another galaxy's Artoo Detoo
The last scene of Silent Running always makes me sniffle a little bit when I watch it.
Yeah, I forgot the Bell System videophone.
I do remember the zero-g toilet instructions -- "the film's only intentional joke"
As to the book "vs." the movie; the book was, as I recall, written after the movie -- although based on the early intention to have the extra-terrestrial setting to be Saturn rather than Jupiter (them rings, you know; a bleedin' sign, they are, eh what?). I like the book, but it's cut from a very different cloth than the movie.
Also, as to an earlier comment about 1968 and what we did or didn't "know" about space -- don't forget that the movie was in production for a long, long time (most of the sixties, again, if memory serves).
Another movie hjames probably doesn't like
is Silent Running, made by 2001 special effects maven Douglas Trumbull and starring the weird, talented Bruce Dern.Silent Running does tackle Saturn, and introduces us, literally, to the movie forebears of another galaxy's Artoo Detoo
The last scene of Silent Running always makes me sniffle a little bit when I watch it.
Not to be forgotten, this fine parody from the warped minds at Mad Magazine.
201 Minutes of Space Idiocy
201 Minutes of Space Idiocy
50nstillhifi
Super Member
Imagine that .... 2001 and HAL refuses to open that darn space hatch for his ... well astronaut crew?Wonder if Alexa ... Or is that "ALEXA"? (An Amazon...
) would do the same in the near future, 2025 one-way trip to Mars?After all, in a sense, this future space cadre is going as "expendable".
Of course... I am saying this in jest...
Or is that something to really think about.. Back to DOS!?
Similar threads
