HAL Remastered
October 21, 2014 2:10 PM   Subscribe

For the upcoming digitally restored theatrical re-release of Kubrick's classic Sci-Fi film, 2001: A Space Odyssey (previously, and previously) a beautiful new trailer for the movie has been put together by the British Film Institute. Via Polygon.
posted by codacorolla (71 comments total) 22 users marked this as a favorite
 
restored theatrical re-release

Apparently only in the UK.
posted by octothorpe at 2:12 PM on October 21, 2014


Indeed. Part of what appears to be an amazing Sci-Fi film festival from roughly now until December. I'm very jealous of anyone who can go to these events in person, but that trailer is still a good tribute to the movie.
posted by codacorolla at 2:18 PM on October 21, 2014 [2 favorites]


I've seen it on 70mm recently and it looked pretty dang good. Considering it's from the 60's and how big the negative was, I full expected to see the seams and strings (like seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark in 70mm and getting a good look at the cobra reflected in the glass between it and Indy). But nope. The effects and the movie were gorgeous.
posted by thecjm at 2:20 PM on October 21, 2014 [2 favorites]


> (like seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark in 70mm and getting a good look at the cobra reflected in the glass between it and Indy)

That's kind of crappy, but at least he didn't digitally alter the cobra into, say, a rake. ("Rakes. Why did it have to be rakes?")
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:30 PM on October 21, 2014 [8 favorites]


I've only seen it in a theater once, way back around 1979 in the old Harvard Square Theater for a midnight showing. It was a pretty scratchy print and the viewing wasn't helped by the copious amount of illegal smoke wafting through the auditorium.
posted by octothorpe at 2:32 PM on October 21, 2014


HAL's RAM goes from 64k to over a GB.
posted by jeff-o-matic at 2:35 PM on October 21, 2014 [6 favorites]


I always suspected HAL's behaviour could be explained by the Millennium Bug...

And since I think I've only ever seen 2001 on VHS I can't wait to see it on the big screen!
posted by sobarel at 2:39 PM on October 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


I've always thought that Keir Dullea (Dave) should re-shoot his later scenes now that he is older to look more realistic.
posted by bottlebrushtree at 2:40 PM on October 21, 2014 [2 favorites]


I don't see much detail on the restoration process. I saw it in 70mm a few years back. The way to tell the 70mm print and 1080pHD from TV resolution are:

70mm: You can read all the text of the instructions for the Zero Gravity Toilet. (Even if you don't have the time to get through them all).

Uncompressed (or minimally compressed) 1080: you can see the detailed text under the explosive bolts warning on the back of the pod.
posted by chimaera at 2:46 PM on October 21, 2014 [4 favorites]


Watching that trailer only depresses me about the terrible state of science fiction cinema these days. I wish I could travel to the UK to see this version in a theatre.
posted by Poldo at 3:01 PM on October 21, 2014 [5 favorites]


When the film first came out, I was in high school. I badgered my dad into driving me and a friend up to Atlanta (90 minute drive) so we could see 2001 in 70 mm on the big screen there.

It was awesome, even if I didn't quite get what was going on with the light show at the end. Blew my teenaged mind. I'd love to see it again on the big screen.

Thanks, Dad.
posted by Archer25 at 3:18 PM on October 21, 2014 [5 favorites]


In the book version of 2001 there is a scene where Arthur C Clarke imagines something like The Internet:

There was plenty to occupy his time, even if he did nothing but sit and read. When he tired of official reports and memoranda and minutes he would plug his foolscap-sized Newspad into the ship's information circuit and scan the latest news reports from Earth. One by one he would conjure up the world's major electronic papers; he knew the codes of the more important ones by heart, and had no need to consult the list on the back of his pad. Switching to the display unit's short-term memory, he would hold the front page while he quickly searched the headlines and noted the items that interested him. Each had its own two-digit reference; when he punched that, the postage-stamp-sized rectangle would expand until it neatly filled the screen, and he could read it with comfort. When he had finished he would flash back to the complete page and select a new subject for detailed examination.

I find it really interesting that ACC was able to predict worldwide electronic communications, but did not really conceive of the huge change to 'publishing' that this would bring about. That is, he imagines traditional, centralised Newspapers being the main use for such a communications network, while infact all of the most interesting uses of the internet have been the decentralised, anyone-can-publish possibilities that it brings about.

This crops up again and again in sci-fi from before the 70s/80s: People could imagine computers, and imagine networking them together, but no-one could really image the paradigm change in communications that that would bring about.
posted by memebake at 3:24 PM on October 21, 2014 [9 favorites]


The one thing that bugs me when people (not in this thread mind you) talk about 2001 is that no one seems to clue into the fact that the bone transforms into an orbiting nuclear bomb.
posted by Nevin at 3:28 PM on October 21, 2014 [2 favorites]


Metafilter: There was plenty to occupy his time, even if he did nothing but sit and read.
posted by slater at 3:32 PM on October 21, 2014 [17 favorites]


The one thing that bugs me when people (not in this thread mind you) talk about 2001 is that no one seems to clue into the fact that the bone transforms into an orbiting nuclear bomb.

This isn't in the text of the film, though. It's well documented that Kubrick intentionally eliminated a planned narration describing the nature of the spacecraft. While it was an orbiting nuclear bomb in early drafts, that plot line didn't make the final cut.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:45 PM on October 21, 2014 [4 favorites]


OMG the ending of that trailer re-edits one of the most famous cuts in cinematography history.
posted by charlie don't surf at 3:50 PM on October 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


The trailer is actually pretty awful. Jarring editing, really sloppy use of the music, sort of a jumpy montage feel that reads like an attempt to capture all of the "greatest hits" scenes from the movie. It's amateurish.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:55 PM on October 21, 2014 [11 favorites]


restored theatrical re-release

Yes! YES! Fuck YEAH!


Apparently only in the UK.


Sigh... Goddamnit.
posted by graphnerd at 3:55 PM on October 21, 2014 [3 favorites]


This crops up again and again in sci-fi from before the 70s/80s: People could imagine computers, and imagine networking them together, but no-one could really image the paradigm change in communications that that would bring about.

There's an even better example in Clarke's 2061, written in 1987:
"I too take leave of all I ever had."

From what depths of memory had that line come swimming up to the surface? Heywood Floyd closed his eyes and tried to focus on the past. It was certainly from a poem -- and he had hardly read a line of poetry since leaving college. And little enough then, except during a short English Appreciation Seminar.

With no further clues, it might take the station Computer quite a while -- perhaps as much as ten minutes -- to locate the line in the whole body of English literature. But that would be cheating (not to mention expensive), and Floyd preferred to accept the intellectual challenge.
Google no longer lists how many couple dozen milliseconds it takes to return about 945 hits pointing to the WWI poem "Farewell" by Robert Nichols, but even when they did, the process has never been expensive, not even if you sit down to work up the math of how much of a fraction from your monthly ISP bill it is for those few seconds to do the search and review the results.
posted by radwolf76 at 4:06 PM on October 21, 2014 [2 favorites]


Because of the dearth of dialogue, this movie is one of the movies I can put on at night and fall quite soundly asleep (and I love Kubrick -- it just has that effect on me).

But the champion film for that is Winged Migration. If I can't sleep because of jetlag, I can just put it on and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 4:10 PM on October 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


I've just finished the novel version of 2001 (for the first time), and would really like to watch the movie again. Too bad this festival is only in Britain. Sigh...

Watching that trailer only depresses me about the terrible state of science fiction cinema these days. I wish I could travel to the UK to see this version in a theatre.

Just think how much worse science fiction cinema was in 1968. There was Planet of The Apes and Barbarella (if you could find a theater that showed it), but after that there was nothing but stuff like The Bamboo Saucer and Astro-Zombies. Science fiction was a genre for kids and teenagers, and there was absolutely nothing that depicted a realistic science fiction future. Then bam, this movie hit like a nova.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:16 PM on October 21, 2014


and fall quite soundly asleep (and I love Kubrick -- it just has that effect on me)

If you can fall asleep during Full Metal Jacket or A Clockwork Orange you have the sincere envy of this lifelong insomniac!
posted by sobarel at 4:22 PM on October 21, 2014


Not impressed by the trailer, but excited that the film is getting a decent re-release in the UK.

I live in Seattle, and am fortunate enough to live within spitting distance of the Seattle Cinerama, which screens 2001 in 70mm once a year or so. The print isn't perfect, but it's quite high quality considering its age. I go to see it every couple years.

One knock the film gets is that the acting is wooden and that "ha ha" the robot has more personality than the humans. A common counter argument is that the characters are all either Bureaucrats or Cool-as-Cucumber Astronauts and that they are intentionally played as wooden for those reasons. That counter argument isn't entirely false, and similar criticisms were made upon the films' initial release by people watching it on a big screen, but i think decades of people watching the film on video has skewed interpretations of the film toward the purely mythic and symbolic.

So, on a big screen the most surprising thing is that this isn't just a big effects film or philosophical exercise. It is equal measure a human drama involving fear, deception and chilling violence in a way that is much more present on a large screen to which these very effective, naturalistic performances are calibrated. I went expecting to experience the immersive world and the pioneering special effects in a new light. In addition to all of that was the takeaway that Keir Dullea's performance in particular is unfairly unsung, and that this is an actor's movie as much as it is a director's or effects movie. That the film is balanced and truly great in all respects.
posted by striatic at 4:25 PM on October 21, 2014 [7 favorites]


It's a kind of movie that can't really be made today: a big, epic statement, Stanley-Kubrick-does-the-ultimate-science-fiction-film. Today there are so many movies that are big and filled with imaginative imagery that it's really hard for one to stand above the rest. Brian De Palma tried to drink from that same well in 2000 with Mission To Mars, but it just didn't work.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:36 PM on October 21, 2014


The one thing that bugs me when people (not in this thread mind you) talk about 2001 is that no one seems to clue into the fact that the bone transforms into an orbiting nuclear bomb.

> This isn't in the text of the film, though. It's well documented that Kubrick intentionally eliminated a planned narration describing the nature of the spacecraft. While it was an orbiting nuclear bomb in early drafts, that plot line didn't make the final cut.


I always liked the artistic liberty Kubrick took on that. The bone gets tossed up in the air, and the next thing we see (immediately after the spacecraft) is a man's pen rotating in the same fashion.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 4:42 PM on October 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


This movie never needed a trailer. It still doesn't.
posted by hal9k at 4:51 PM on October 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


2001 is the most optimistic Kubrick movie cause it supposes there MIGHT be a way for humankind to get over its murderous animal nature (removed from the modern man but given to his robotic children) even if it requires literal aliens to do it.
posted by The Whelk at 4:53 PM on October 21, 2014 [2 favorites]


If you can fall asleep during Full Metal Jacket or A Clockwork Orange you have the sincere envy of this lifelong insomniac!

No, no -- can't do that. It's just the lack of dialogue and classical music that sends me off to Europa and Beyond the Infinite.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 4:57 PM on October 21, 2014


I believe I saw 2001 in an actual movie theater in the year 2001 as part of a special release. But it was in a crummy multiplex, which is all there was then, and the screen was about the size of a persian rug. It was disappointing (the experience, not the film).
posted by jabah at 5:43 PM on October 21, 2014


and the viewing wasn't helped by the copious amount of illegal smoke wafting through the auditorium.

the only drug for 2001 is LSD. You never get drowsy. Your focus only intensifies. Everything makes sense, not that words can be found to express this. I've had the theatrical experience twice. But the second time my friend Dave got a bit weirded out.
posted by philip-random at 6:02 PM on October 21, 2014 [2 favorites]


Here's the really talky original theatrical trailer for comparison.
posted by codacorolla at 6:02 PM on October 21, 2014 [3 favorites]


Sounds cool. I've had the opportunity to see it a couple of times when it has been shown at the Dryden Theater (George Eastman House - International Museum of Photography and Film), but they had not been able to show it on Jan 01 2001 as they had wished because of *reasons*.

Back when the movie was first out, I had read articles about it in Life and Popular Mechanics, and probably read the book by Clarke 6 times before I saw the movie. Enjoyed it immensely.

That said, I also enjoyed the Mad Magazine spoof (Pod: "What a trip". Monolith: "I'd say - you've just crashed through 3000 floors of the Jupiter Op Art Museum").
posted by rochrobbb at 6:20 PM on October 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


One of my absolute favorite films. I hope the interest leads to a US run; I'd imagine seeing it in a theater would be an incredible experience.

I have to agree with mr_roboto, though; that trailer is dreadful. Almost seems like a jokey fan-made thing. Maybe it'll resonate with folks who haven't seen the movie, but it just seemed kinda pedestrian to me given the source material.
posted by kryptondog at 6:32 PM on October 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


The AFI Silver Theatre in the DC Metro area is showing a 70MM print in November.
posted by now i'm piste at 6:35 PM on October 21, 2014 [5 favorites]


Metafilter: You can read all the text of the instructions for the Zero Gravity Toilet. (Even if you don't have the time to get through them all).
posted by stargell at 7:12 PM on October 21, 2014 [2 favorites]


If it is released in your area make every effort to see it in the largest theater possible, ideally in a fully curved Cinerama. No drugs needed, the film is in itself transcendental.
posted by sammyo at 7:17 PM on October 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


I saw this in Cinerama when it came out in 1968. I was six, and the apes scared me.

Now I think my favorite thing in the movie is when Heywood has to choose between a ham sandwich and egg salad while riding in the Moon shuttle to the obelisk site. That decision is at once so utterly mundane and so profound. I mean, ham--on the moon! (And remember the slash-cut of the ape bludgeoning a pig-like creature as he discovers the power of the bone weapon)
posted by stargell at 7:33 PM on October 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


I love the ham sandwich conversation. Man hadn't even landed on the moon yet but Kubrick and Clarke knew that space travel would quickly go from miraculous to boring. Eventually our great grandchildren will be bitching about the legroom on the moon shuttle and about the upcharge for extra luggage and not even bothering to look out of the window.
posted by octothorpe at 8:41 PM on October 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


The trailer is pretty awful. Not a big deal though, never really liked the movie and it hasn't aged well. It mundane coldness and lethargic pacing is like driving behind a senior citizen for two hours while someone keeps swearing something good will happen real soon now.

I found 2010 to be a bit better, with a tighter plot and characters you at least found somewhat interesting.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:04 PM on October 21, 2014


As fans of the movie, what do y'all love about it and was it love at first viewing?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:10 PM on October 21, 2014


My dear the whelk.
Optimism and hope is not the point or why else would bowman have to spend an inordinate amount of time in a static Berkshires' suite eating steak and watching no television.
Why would the opening Scene have Floyd asking for security. Then his lying to Russians', some guy with a scanner at the conference like tacks to cork and
all about some wacky computer that was plausibly denied.
posted by clavdivs at 9:11 PM on October 21, 2014


One of the interesting subtle subplots of the novel is that the world is slowly starting to starve. It is noted that the U.S. has legally-enforced meatless days, mostly as a result of overpopulation. It is implied that part of the evolution of humankind is learning to use its tools not just to kill, but to sustainably feed itself. The thread is never picked up again in the movies or the rest of the Odyssey novels.

It is equal measure a human drama involving fear, deception and chilling violence in a way that is much more present...

Absolutely. I defy anyone to watch the scene where HAL murders the three hibernating astronauts and not feel horror watching as they are quietly killed by this insane computer. It's an act of violence more horrible and terrifying than any slasher film because it is so senseless and clinical. And it leaves Bowman completely alone millions of miles from Earth.
posted by zooropa at 9:25 PM on October 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


the viewing wasn't helped by the copious amount of illegal smoke wafting through the auditorium.

the only drug for 2001 is LSD.

No drugs needed, the film is in itself transcendental.


Well, it was billed as 'the ultimate trip'.
When initially released it received some negative reviews, most notably from Pauline Kael, film critic for the New Yorker, who called it "a monumentally unimaginative movie."
MGM brought in Mike Kaplan -- "the resident longhair in the publicity department of MGM" -- to rethink the film’s marketing."
-- The Guardian
It was being presented as "an epic drama of adventure and exploration", and many were expecting a modern Flash Gordon. Instead, Kubrick had created a metaphysical drama encompassing evolution, reincarnation, the beauty of space, the terror of science, the mystery of mankind. The campaign had to be reconceived and repositioned. . . .
We were in the midst of the 1960s youth revolution. Friends in the underground [emphasis added] press had already seen 2001 several times . . .
-- Turnmeondeadman
. . . and liked to get high during the "Jupiter and Beyond" section.

The film and was relaunched with a new marketing campaign (and importantly, a new poster) to highlight its appeal to the counterculture.

Instead of an epic drama , 2001 became "The Ultimate Trip"

Ultimately 2001: A Space Odyssey has come to be regarded as a classic with a reputation as psychedelic film. But:
[I]t was never meant to represent an acid trip. On the other hand a connection does exist. An acid trip is probably similar to the kind of mind-boggling experience that might occur at the moment of encountering extraterrestrial intelligence.
--Kubrick in Rolling Stone
= = = = =
2001: A Space Odyssey has a point to make about our relationship with technology. The faith in HAL as an infallible computer leads to disaster . . . . Only after Dave frees himself from HAL is he free to dream again. And while it is overwhelming at first, ultimately it allows him to progress to the next level of human development.
= = = = =
The bone gets tossed up in the air, and the next thing we see . . . is a man's pen rotating in the same fashion.

What's that you say? A man's pen is rotating?

You are Governor Tommy Thompson and I claim my five pounds.
 
posted by Herodios at 9:37 PM on October 21, 2014 [4 favorites]


One of the interesting subtle subplots of the novel is that the world is slowly starting to starve. It is noted that the U.S. has legally-enforced meatless days, mostly as a result of overpopulation. It is implied that part of the evolution of humankind is learning to use its tools not just to kill, but to sustainably feed itself. The thread is never picked up again in the movies or the rest of the Odyssey novels.
Clarke's geopolitical predictions for the year 2001 are fascinating:

- The world has seven billion people, and food supplies are stretched to the limit.

- There are twenty or thirty nations with nuclear weapons, and China is selling missiles to other countries at bargain rates.

- The Soviet Union still exists, but America and the USSR are cooperating with each other.

- China has a moribund economy and is engaged in a cold war with the West.
posted by Kevin Street at 10:06 PM on October 21, 2014 [2 favorites]


the most optimistic Kubrick movie

Personally, I have always found it far more terrifying than The Shining. From Hal to the Star-Child, it's a What hath Man wrought telegram from the future.

Watching that trailer only depresses me about the terrible state of science fiction cinema these days.

I know reactions were mixed, but we did have films such as Under the Skin, Her, and there are films like Interstellar coming up that should be at least interesting. We've had new classics such as Moon and Inception. This doesn't even touch fantasy or the more space opera stuff like nuTrek.

But at the time of 2001, there had really never been anything like it at all. I'll take 2014 over 1968 any day (threat of nuclear annihilation not even taken into account).
posted by dhartung at 12:02 AM on October 22, 2014


Watching that trailer only depresses me about the terrible state of science fiction cinema these days.

You need to see Europa Report. See it on a very big screen in HD if possible - the cinematography is sumptuous and artful, evocative of 2001 without aping it. One of the finest hard-sci films I've seen in years, right up there with Moon and Contact.
posted by FatherDagon at 2:02 AM on October 22, 2014


HAL is the reason computer voices are all female now.
posted by Mister_A at 4:05 AM on October 22, 2014 [1 favorite]



I am optimistic about Interstellar, but a bit worried. Advance reviews are positive, but information revealed about the plot now make it appear that

*** BEGIN POSSIBLE PLOT REVELATION SPOILER FOR INTERSTELLAR MOVIE *** BEGIN POSSIBLE PLOT REVELATION SPOILER FOR INTERSTELLAR MOVIE *** *** BEGIN POSSIBLE PLOT REVELATION SPOILER FOR INTERSTELLAR MOVIE ** we're going OUT THERE not because we're ready and we're interested, but because the Earth is doomed. *** END POSSIBLE PLOT REVELATION SPOILER FOR INTERSTELLAR MOVIE *** END POSSIBLE PLOT REVELATION SPOILER FOR INTERSTELLAR MOVIE *** END POSSIBLE PLOT REVELATION SPOILER FOR INTERSTELLAR MOVIE ***




That seems unnecessary, like the filmmakers don't trust us, and takes it further from 2001 and Contact more into Solar territory.

What is is with the adjectives, anyway? Duncan Jones didn't feel the need to call his movie Lunar.
 
posted by Herodios at 4:40 AM on October 22, 2014


I remember seeing the trailer for europa report, and it seemed to be a lovecraftian take on "evil murderous aliens kill all the astronauts" so I never bothered to go see it. Is it actually more than that?
posted by Poldo at 5:01 AM on October 22, 2014


I found 2010 to be a bit better, with a tighter plot and characters you at least found somewhat interesting.

I can't think of a sequel that desecrates the original movie more than that one does. I've tried to express in words the how much and why I hate 2010 but I just can't get it all down on the page. I get mad just thinking about it.
posted by octothorpe at 5:09 AM on October 22, 2014


I can't think of a sequel that desecrates the original movie more than that one does. I've tried to express in words the how much and why I hate 2010 but I just can't get it all down on the page. I get mad just thinking about it.

"Haf you discussed ziz vith Hal?"
 
posted by Herodios at 5:54 AM on October 22, 2014


I think Stalker is a better movie than 2001. I would love to see that one on the big screen...
posted by sonic meat machine at 6:01 AM on October 22, 2014


This isn't in the text of the film, though. It's well documented that Kubrick intentionally eliminated a planned narration describing the nature of the spacecraft. While it was an orbiting nuclear bomb in early drafts, that plot line didn't make the final cut.

For me Arthur C. Clarke's vision for the film will always be canonical.
posted by Nevin at 6:30 AM on October 22, 2014 [1 favorite]


I don't think you can compare Stalker with 2001, at least usefully. I'd hate to have to choose.

2010. My abiding memory is that they used Radio Shack walkie-talkie headsets in the spaceship. The rest has been washed away by expensive therapy and cheap wine (I have priority issues, OK?).

The trailer is clearly doing a particular job, which is to get people who think 2001 is dull back into the cinema. I think it's doing a good job, and people like me would go to see the damn movie if the trailer was stop-motion rotoscoped Lego to a disco beat. Make that 'will go', because I am in London. Y'all have Simpsons World. Fair swap.

I came to 2001 having read the novel first (and being a far bigger SF fan than movie fan) and I think that helped - I knew what was going on, so could soak up the imagery and become part of that world. There was no need to suspend disbelief (same's true, for very different reasons, with Stalker). And in many ways, the film is simply impeccable. There is a cleanliness, a focus to the forward movement of the plot that matches the almost hyper-real definition of the objects, action and characters. it is as powerful and monomaniacal as a Saturn V: the only thing it takes time to be apart from the delivery mechanism of taut stainless vision, is beautiful.

It is pure cinema. I wish we could have Kubrick - that Kubrick - back.
posted by Devonian at 6:44 AM on October 22, 2014


I have similar problems with Clarke's novel of 2001 that I do with 2010 (both novel and movie). Clarke just explains too much and drains all of the poetry out.
posted by octothorpe at 7:09 AM on October 22, 2014



For me Arthur C. Clarke's vision for the film will always be canonical.

I don't think "for me" goes with "canonical".

And while we have all become accustomed to adaptations and novelizations, in this case we know that for 2001, the screenplay and novel were developed simultaneously. So to the extent that there is a canon, they're both equally canonical.

While I think Arthur Clarke was fantastic, I believe Kubrick's is the superior artistic vision for 2001. I totally agree with his decisions to not delineate, not make everything explicit, limit the verbal content, not attempt to explain everything. Maybe that is a psychedelic approach after all.

I'm very glad I got to see the film soon after its initial release and before reading Clarke's version. (Or Lost Worlds of 2001).
 
posted by Herodios at 7:45 AM on October 22, 2014


I don't think "for me" goes with "canonical".

See, this bit of pedantry explains why Arthur C. Clarke is superior.
posted by Nevin at 8:10 AM on October 22, 2014


Clarke just explains too much and drains all of the poetry out.

There's a famous Kubrick quote I always remembered from the book "The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey," he said, "If it can be seen, or thought, or felt, it can be filmed."

I get his point, but no, there are plenty of things you can think or feel that can never be translated into film in any meaningful way. But even a failed attempt to do this, elevates a film beyond the mundane, into fine art.
posted by charlie don't surf at 8:10 AM on October 22, 2014


For me Arthur C. Clarke's vision for the film will always be canonical.

There are many differences between the book and movie including the fact that the voyage goes to a totally different planet. The novel is canonical for the series of novels but says nothing about the movie which stands on it it's own.
posted by octothorpe at 8:39 AM on October 22, 2014


Brandon Blatcher: I love everything about 2001 that you hate. The coldness, the silence, the inexorable emptiness. For me, it was a chilling and terrifying idea of both space travel and filmmaking. I was maybe 12 the first time I watched it, and it has stuck with me all this time. I love that the film gives the audience no more than is necessary -- it's symphonic, in a way, providing the audience with a visual language and leaving the audience to form its own conclusions. So many films attempt to manipulate the audience's expectations, but I never felt that way about 2001. I am captivated by the subtlety of Keir Dullea's performance, and I delight in the anxiety and tension that the film engenders by not going where you want it to go.

That said, I also love 2010, even though it is admittedly a thoroughly different kind of film. I love the interplay between the characters, the straightforward action-adventure feel of it. It is like 2001 happened in a surreal bubble, and 2010 represents the real-life people sent to figure out what happened in that bubble.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 8:45 AM on October 22, 2014 [2 favorites]


2010 is the best movie that Peter Hyams ever made.
posted by octothorpe at 9:52 AM on October 22, 2014


Re: europa report: worth watching. Quite thoughtful, uses its moderate budget well. Proper sci-fi really.
posted by memebake at 10:53 AM on October 22, 2014 [1 favorite]



Europa Report: worth watching. Quite thoughtful, uses its moderate budget well. Proper sci-fi really

Definitely.

I remember seeing the trailer for europa report, and it seemed to be a lovecraftian take on "evil murderous aliens kill all the astronauts"

Well shame on the producers of that trailer, then.

If I understand your use of 'lovecraftian' (trying to avoid spoilers here), the only lovecraftian visual lasts maybe five seconds. The number of crew deaths attributable directly to the actions of evil murderous aliens is zero.

The real story is this: Space is hard, but we really have to go. And a 100% fatal mission can be a 1000% success.
 
posted by Herodios at 11:13 AM on October 22, 2014


Yeah, exactly, Herodios. SF movies are too often anti-science. "You're playing God!" and "You've seen things man was not meant to see!" Europa Report is refreshingly pro-science. There are deaths, but they're heroic deaths in the name of human discovery.
posted by brundlefly at 11:59 AM on October 22, 2014 [1 favorite]


Vaguely related to the FPP: this rather effective modern trailer for Alien 3.
posted by brundlefly at 12:00 PM on October 22, 2014 [1 favorite]


Remember:

HAL
IBM

Coincidence?
posted by sammyo at 12:09 PM on October 22, 2014


According to Clarke (by way of WP), Clarke and Kubrick first met to discuss the possibility of collaborating on a space movie on April 22, 1964 (at Trader Vic's -- how cool is that!).

At that time, there was plenty of space cheese -- and space cheesecake -- on tv, film, and print. And there'd beem a few good space episodes on Twilight Zone and especially Out Limits. But the last really good space movie for adults out of Hollywood was Forbidden Planet in 1956.

Irwin Allen and Gene Roddenberry began development on their space-oriented teevy series the same year Clarke and Kubrick teamed up.

By the time 2001 was released we'd had Lost in Space and Star Trek on teevy, and First Men in the Moon and Robinson Crusoe on Mars in the cinema, along with a few other bits of fermented curd.

That year (1968) also saw release of Barbarella and Countdown (a literal space race to the death, toe-to-toe with the Russkies. Directed by Robert Altman and starring James Caan and Robert Duvall (!)).

None of this quite prepared movie audiences for 2001.
 
posted by Herodios at 12:45 PM on October 22, 2014 [1 favorite]


Eventually they'll make a 3D version. You know it will happen. An Abrams production with added action!
posted by juiceCake at 1:27 PM on October 22, 2014 [1 favorite]


The novel is canonical for the series of novels but says nothing about the movie which stands on it it's own.

The novel isn't even canonical for the series of novels. In 2010, instead of Saturn/Iapetus, it's Jupiter/Europa. Clarke played fast and loose with his Odyssey canon. To be sure, he freely admits this. The series is rife with contradictions/changes.

There's a ton of inconsistencies from switches of location, epilogues (20,001) that conflict with later stories, etc.
posted by chimaera at 4:40 PM on October 23, 2014


2061
posted by clavdivs at 4:43 PM on October 23, 2014


Syfy has ordered a television miniseries adaptation of Arthur C. Clarke’s novel 3001: The Final Odyssey. The 2001: A Space Odyssey sequel will be adapted by screenwriter Stuart Beattie of Pirates of the Caribbean and Collateral fame. Beattie will also serve as executive producer alongside Ridley Scott and David W. Zucker (Numbers, The Good Wife).
posted by octothorpe at 1:38 PM on November 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


« Older "How are things in the Land of Youth?" Ursula Le...   |   JUST HOOK IT TO MY VEINS Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments