2001: A Space Odyssey

You're not the only one confused by the "whole floating kid thing." I saw the motion picture in the theater at the time of its original release. It was quite impressive then, and it stands up well today. I've read elsewhere that there were 68 special effects in that motion picture, compared to 700 or so in the first Star Wars. I considered the first SW to be mildly entertaining, but basically a western set in outer space.

2001 on the other hand explores some interesting ideas. There is a short story by Arthur C. Clarke on which the motion picture was based. It is entitled The Sentinal. You might find it interesting to read. Keep in mind that it was a short story--i bring that up because Clarke was induced to sell the rights to the story, and it was then expanded into the movie script. Love for the short story, and not a novel. As I say, i think you'd find it interesting.

2010 is interesting as a science fiction adventure movie, but does not come up at all the level of 2001--still, you might check that out.

You took the words right out of my mouth, Setanta. Now cut that out.

I like "2010" but it tends to become over academic in its approach until the last fifteen minutes when the revelation of the change to the Jupiter system is, for me, very inspiring and delivers on the sense of wonder expected from this genre. The John Lithgow EVA sequence is also astounding on the big screen.

And I know I've stated it before, but my last big screen viewing was at the Hollywood Cinerama Dome on their curved, monster Cinerama-scale screen and I don't think I will ever forget it. I believe that theater has over twenty JBL theater speakers so the sound was also awesome. I understand from my tech friends in Hollywood that the IMAX version is going very slowly because they are digitizing the picture to bring it back to as high a resolution as possible. Those pre-CGI effects are rather hard to believe and in IMAX, well, it will put sense of wonder in bold, capital letters.

I wish they still made serious SCI-FI films like 2001, SILENT RUNNING and JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN. These film really impressed me when I was a kid.I think STAR WARS has ruined science fiction on film.

I agree with you guys. I think that 2001 was just so different from what we get with todays sci-fi movies. It's a shame not more movies like it are made. Could anyone explain what was meant by the transformation scene at the end of 2001? I pretty much get alot of the other symbolizims and stuff in the rest of the movie.

And thanks setenta I think I will look into that short story. If I have time I'll see if I can find a copy of 2010 from my uncle or somewhere.

A great film indeed (though some I've spoken to insist it's much better while under the influence of marijuana or lsd), but stop trying to 'figure out' what that ending's about--Kubrick was a sick and twisted individual with the nasty habit of forcing his audience to think; there might be three or four very plausible interpretations for it, but none will come out as more plausible than the others.

As for this little nugget:
Them's fighting words!

Star Wars was the making of science fiction (of course, I'm ignoring the existence of Episodes I and II when I state this)--sci-fi was a specialty market before Star Wars made it a staple of mainstream cinema. Certainly a good many mediocre sci-fi movies were made after its newfound widespread appeal, but a great many good sci-fi movies that might have not been made (or made with insufficient budgets) have come out largely thanks to Star Wars and its popularity.

I was blown away by 2001 and equally by Solaris (Tarkovsky, 1972; definitely not Soderbergh, 2002) which also has a "floating foetus thing" .

The big difference between 2001 and most other Sci-fi movies is that 2001, on the insistence of Clarke, was a real SCIENCE-fiction story, while most modern flicks focus mainly on the fiction part.

They did a great job with the musical score, too . . .

Ive never managed to sit through 2001.

I think that Kubrick had cooked up an artistic way of expressing the old saw, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. I believe that he was expressing that human beings were leaving behind their former level of existence, (as shown in the scene with the old man), and were embarking on a higher level of evolution, (as shown in the fetus.)

As Professor Higgins remarked, Phoenix, "I think she's got it!"

Although "2010" attempts to explain a lot about those final scenes, it still leaves Dave and his significance as an enigma. It's not entirely a mystery that the monoliths are windows into the universe and a system of highly advance technology which also represent the building blocks of the universe.

My Dad (may he rest in peace) when I first coaxed my parents into seeing the film remarked when the huge, color-shifting eye (supposedly a close-up of Dave's own eye) appeared in the final sequences, "It's the eye of God."

Kubrick doesn't try to explain God, nor any kind of religion, and, in fact, it's a film that challenges one's concept of religion.

Those who "can't sit through it" are missing an extraordinary experience, but I must again emphasize that it is a film that should definitely be seen on the big screen. I will try to keep everyone up-dated on the progress of the IMAX version. There is now a technology to convert 2-D into 3-D and not sure how well that would work with "2001" -- it would have to waylay any attempt at turning any of the special effects into "trick shots." The idea of the Pan Am (a funny irony in the film as the airline is now defunct) spaceship floating in space in 3-D IMAX is intriguing.

As far as good sci-fi that can approach this film, it will be a long time coming I'm afraid -- the film is still on the top ten films of all time on the Sight and Sound poll of the most respected film critics. "Blade Runner" and "Solaris" (yes, even the new one) have come close and "Star Wars" being strictly space opera (actually diminished in Lucas' annoying perchance for weak Azimov-inspired plotlines of socio-political contrivances in I & II) still buoyed the interest in sci-fi. It's the attempts to copy those films that seem like limp efforts. As far as "Star Trek," there's been some good ones and bad ones and my favorite is "First Contact." The last one, "Nemisis" was also good space opera but had no theme at its core. I would see it just for the catastrophic scene of the collision. Got my adrenalin running!

I've listed more than once some of those books that could make great sci-fi films: "The Demolished Man," "Foundation," "Mission of Gravity," "Slan." There are so many if one would go back through serious sci-fi instead of dredging up old pulp sci-fi chesnuts as "Battlefield Earth." The most excruciatingly boring people I've ever met in my life has to be those who believe they have become a "clear" due to the program (and money grubbing) of Scientology. Why would anyone think the same person who founded this pseudo-religion could possibly write a great book?

Tom Cruise and John Travolta are so happy-wappy in person it's almost enough to want to grab for the airsick bag. Squirt them with water and they don't "liquidate," they retort with such inane pedestrian reponses as "you're a jerk." Yikes!

(Please don't let this divert the thread!)

For a long time I've wanted to see a talented director take a shot at Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, but I just don't know how some of it would translate to the screen. A more contemporary sci-fi novel that's ripe for the big screen is Card's Ender's Game.

"Stranger" is, IMO, a diversion from Heinlein's almost documentary-style future history series and far from his best, although one of his most popular (along with "Starship Troopers," and unabashed space opera but done right). I'd rather see them make "The Green Hills of Earth" in an almost Kurosawa visually artistic vein similar to "2001," but I can't think of a director who would tackle it. Maybe Ridley Scott or even Spielberg but it's doubtful we'll ever see that.

"2001" was a visual movie, the "story" was as big as space but a lot of people think they've got it but don't. They have a tendency to believe they are smarter than a Stanley Kubrick, probably the most intelligent director we've ever had. "Strangelove" is as pungent and transcending as any Voltaire satire.

"Ender's Game" would make an exciting movie.

2001: A Space Odyssey is a classic, still; even though its special effects and notions for the future are a bit silly now. In 1968 when I saw it for the first time it was a WOW! film far ahead of its time, similar in impact to Star Wars in 1977 or The Lord of the Rings more recently.

Yes, the ending is a little too weird. I THINK that Kubrick intentionally left it incomprehensible because, as humans, we can't possibly comprehend the thoughts and actions of a superior intelligence, any more than an ant can comprehend what humans do.

Or maybe Kubrick couldn't figure out how to end the movie....

I'm told that, unlike other sf films that just have a lot of blinking lights, the spaceship control panels shown in 2001 make sense to current pilots & astronauts. They can actually tell what controls the actor-nauts are manipulating as they dock, fly, and land.

I don't find the vision of the future in "2001" to be silly, just out of tune with actual chronology. Obviously, there's no space station or space liners yet and may not be in our lifetime. Dubya's phony allusion to a manned voyage to Mars is a pipe dream as a sound bite. An international space "wheel" such as in "2001" has always been what scientists and artists like Chesley Bonestell in the Willy Ley/Werner von Braun books has envisioned. That's going to happen before we go to Mars. The boosterless space shuttle should be on the front boards but with a President with horse blinders on, it's on the back burner.

The interior of the space ship was painstakingly well researched including the suspended animation. Such a pivotal element when HAL takes control and becomes schizophrenic! HAL's malfunction is chillingly realistic.

The reason the interiors and controls are so realistic is because Kubrick had aeronautical engineers and NASA scientists help design them.