2001
Posted by BebopI remember seeing this film when I was about 14 or 15. It was on TV once when I was flicking through and it was a film I had always wanted to see so i sat an watched. Despite it being very slow paced I was very excited and entertaing during the film.
When I started my film studies course I was the only person who actually liked it. Even the kid who acted more cultured than he was hated it. What does VGChat think? I loved his bazzarness and how open it was. I also found Hal to be very, very scary.
Posted by PROF CHAOSI found it a pretty weird movie. But it is considered a classic and does have some really good effects for being done in the late 60s.
Posted by BebopIt certainly does. That bit where the waitress (Im Im remembering correctly) is walking on a 360 degree surface is truly well done.
Posted by Lord of SpamIf you read the book, you hate the movie. Same with clockwork orange.
Posted by BebopI've read Clockwork Orange and have no beef against the movie. I think they are just as good. As far as 2001 is concerned its more a short story than a book. Thats how it was turned into a film anyway.
Posted by Lord of SpamYeah, the clockwork orange movie was just as good as the book, despite the fact that it was missing an entire chapter that was key to the central concept of the book. :rolleyes:
As for 2001, the screenplay was developed by Kubrik in cooperation with Clark as the book was being written. Personally, I feel that Kubrik took something that was a fairly dense story and took out some of the drama. He then flipped some of the details around and then filled out the rest of the movie with pretentious musical scenes. For ***s sake, there isnt a single word spoken in the movie for at least the first 20 minutes; not even any narration.
Its a movie only a pretentious movie fag (or someone wishing to seem cultured about film, anyway) could really love, assuming they've bothered to read the book.
Posted by BebopSpoiler: The final chapter in A Clockwork Orange was removed from American publications. By the time Kubrick found out he had pretty much finished the film. Even so I'd say the film works better without it. It's more chilling, although it was nice to have closure for Alex in the book.
2001 was based on an original short story. Once Kubrick picked it up both decided to collabarote and make it something longer/newer. Due to artisitc and scheduling difficutlies the 2 basically decided to part ways and create their own thing, but based on the same short stroy. So the film is and isnt based on the book. The film was completed before the book. Way to fail.
Only narrow minded people would freak that they arent spoon fed narrative. The amount of times Ive heard people say its annoying theres no speaking for the first 30 minutes is pathetic. They're apes! And the musical bits are nice. I love to hear peoples interpretations of the film and unfortunately its one of the few films that provides that.
Posted by Fei-on Castor
Quoting Lord of Spam: Same with clockwork orange.
Really? Even the sequence where he rapes the guy's wife while singing "Singing in the rain"? Because that always bothered me when I saw it.
Bebop, if you enjoyed 2001, you should check out Soylent Green. I'll spoil it for you with one word:
People.
Posted by Lord of Spam
Quoting Bebop: Spoiler: The final chapter in A Clockwork Orange was removed from American publications. By the time Kubrick found out he had pretty much finished the film. Even so I'd say the film works better without it. It's more chilling, although it was nice to have closure for Alex in the book.
2001 was based on an original short story. Once Kubrick picked it up both decided to collabarote and make it something longer/newer. Due to artisitc and scheduling difficutlies the 2 basically decided to part ways and create their own thing, but based on the same short stroy. So the film is and isnt based on the book. The film was completed before the book. Way to fail.
Only narrow minded people would freak that they arent spoon fed narrative. The amount of times Ive heard people say its annoying theres no speaking for the first 30 minutes is pathetic. They're apes! And the musical bits are nice. I love to hear peoples interpretations of the film and unfortunately its one of the few films that provides that.
The movie is like all kubirk films: pretentious an doverdone for the purpose of being "arty". Its needlessly complex (or, needlessly oversimplisitc at times) to the point of being annoying. You can hand out all the fails you want, but I'm not the one trying to pretend that a movie that was filler for the first 20 minutes was good.
Posted by Fei-on Castor
Quoting Lord of Spam: The movie is like all kubirk films: pretentious an doverdone for the purpose of being "arty". Its needlessly complex (or, needlessly oversimplisitc at times) to the point of being annoying. You can hand out all the fails you want, but I'm not the one trying to pretend that a movie that was filler for the first 20 minutes was good.
The point your making is solidified with Kubrik's final effort, Eyes Wide Shut, a tail of a married couple that somehow involves orgies, Nicole Kidman topless, unconcious hookers, and sweet masks.
Although I didn't mind 2001 or Clockwork. Though I felt like Kubrik's method involved simply chosing a bizzare/controversial/NC-17 theme. And then he'd just do things with that theme that you weren't really supposed to do on film, like having Nicole Kidman show the world her 7th grader's boobs.
He's kind of like the Eminem of directors, in that he built his career around p*ssing off various organizations and offending concerned parents.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: Bebop, if you enjoyed 2001, you should check out Soylent Green. I'll spoil it for you with one word:
People.
It's not a spoiler when "SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE" is a pop-culture reference.
Posted by BebopHa ha I know all about Soylent Green. I just found out there was a sequel to 2001, directed by someone else. Im curious to watch although it'll probably ruin the unique, bizzarre open film that was the brilliant 2001. Another great sci-fi film which Spam would hate because theres no action is Solaris. I've only seen the reamke with Clooney but I thought it was superb.
And Spam, I said you failed because you thought you knew alot about the books transitions into the films when you didnt. Althoguh from looking at other movie threads you're really not into different films. Especially ones where you have to think. Which is a shame because Kubrick makes very good films.
Posted by EchoSpam, shush. The differences between 2001 the movie and 2001 the book really are fairly small. No big major plot events change, they might just happen slightly differently. Both the movie and the book are excellent, and are in my list of personal favorites. The musical sequences of the movie (especially the first 20 minutes) were highly enjoyable because yes, they were very artistic.
In response to the thread: I absolutely loved 2001 (like I said, both the book and the movie). HAL is one of my favorite movie characters of all time, with his chilling monotone voice and red fisheye. I haven't seen the movie version of the sequel, but I've read the book, which is also excellent.
Posted by BebopWhat happens in the sequel echo? And which book would you say is better?
Posted by Echo
Quoting Bebop: What happens in the sequel echo? And which book would you say is better?
A group of Russians, plus Dr. Chandra (HAL's maker) and Heywood Floyd (the guy who was on the moon when TMA-1 emitted the signal) go to retrieve the Discovery. Lots of other stuff happening, but in the interest of not spoiling it (especially the ending, which is great), that's the most basic parts of the plot.
I perfer 2001 to 2010 (the sequel), myself. It has a lot more HAL in it, which was one of my big reasons for liking it at all. 2010 seems more fast-paced and more stuff happens in it, though. Because the crew in 2010 is much larger than the two-man crew in 2001, there is a lot more of a focus on the inter-personal relationships, which I liked. It's really hard to say that one is better than another, but I liked the original a tad more, if nothing else but because I loved HAL and he was featured much more in 2001 (most of 2010 doesn't even take place on Discovery).
Posted by BebopWait, are you saying Hal was still featured in 2010? How can this be because Hal 'dies' in 2001?
Posted by Echo
Quoting Bebop: Wait, are you saying Hal was still featured in 2010? How can this be because Hal 'dies' in 2001?
The reason HAL's creator is along is because he knows how to repair HAL. HAL never actually "died", he was just completely disabled in 2001. He can be restarted, but it would take someone who knows how (link Dr. Chandra) to do it. They're reviving HAL to help try to figure out what exactly went wrong in the 2001 mission.
Posted by Bebop
Quoting Echo: They're reviving HAL to help try to figure out what exactly went wrong in the 2001 mission.
But but....but HAL is what went wrong! OMG!
Posted by Echo
Quoting Bebop: But but....but HAL is what went wrong! OMG!
Well, they're trying to figure out exactly what part of HAL's programming made him go crazy, so that they can make it so that he doesn't go crazy anymore. Just... read the book.