[horatio]

Originally Posted by martok2112

Indeed.
It would seem that the "instant gratification" generation stems back further than we thought.

Well, to be honest I often have a hard time with such slow art movies which require a lot of attention and I never got into Truffaut or any other French moviemaker. Kubrick on the other hand is fairly easy to watch.
It is easy to play this "Hollywood is fast-food cinema, like burgers it takes over the world because it tastes well but is basically crap" game. But I think this is wrong, it is perhaps precisely the lucidity of American movies which explains their universal appeal. This includes more artsy movies like those of Kubrick who are clear and entertaining, even during their slow moments.

[martok2112]

By default, as a sci-fi nut, I love me some 2001, even during its slow parts.

But Battlefield: Earth, and Supernova?!!!! Yikes! Total wastes of celluloid.

[kevin]

I think that '2001' is probably more accessible now simply because it's been written about and interviewed and theorised so much that it's inaccesibility at the time of release seems maybe in some ways a little hard to tell.

For example the first time I saw the jump cut from the 'Dawn of Man' section to the future I didn't realise that was supposed to be an orbiting Nuclear Weapons Satellite. It just cuts from one to the other. But then when later you find out what it was meant to be (which the film never states) you realise more that we've cut from the FIRST weapon of man to the most recent weapons. And that's the link.

And then the scene is rendered more 'oh.........yeah, I see now' and the mystery starts to retreat a little. It's just that the film doesn't ever tell you in that direct obvious way. And there's a few instances of that through it.

But I don't find it a slow film, I enjoy it. I could watch the space station sequence over and over and even though nothing is said or done, it's still captivating visually and musically.

[samwiseb]

I quite like the movie, although it doesn't really pick up for me until the Jupiter mission. Something about the moon/space station stuff just seems more dated than the Hal 9000 material. Or maybe it just takes that long to reach the point where I stop noticing how dated the movie feels.

While I too have read/heard much about 2001's genius, I find that I can't accept it unquestioningly. I don't deny its subtext (Man re-learning to walk, being toilet trained, eating 'baby food', etc.) or its visual scope. However parts of its cinematography feel somewhat arbitrary... a good example of this being in the final act as we are treated to various 'landscape' shots while Kubrick plays around with his color filters like he's discovered a new toy. Truth be told, much of the film does not feel very evenly polished. And what is 2001, when you come right down to it? Between Kubrick and Clark, you would probably get two very different answers (I've read the first two novels, and I have to say I found them disappointing next to the movie).

I've made this observation before: obviously no one would suggest a film like Star Trek TMP -or David Lynch's DUNE for that matter- was on the same level as 2001 and still hope to retain credibility. And yet, I am unable to cite what makes 2001 a (supposedly) superior movie, and certainly not without simply regurgitating the praise others have given it.

Which finally brings me back to Prometheus. The general 'consensus' seems to be (even among most of us here, if I recollect) that Prometheus won't be another 2001 or Blade Runner. Or in other words, it won't be a "oh I see, we just didn't understand it properly when it came out" kind of movie. But now I'm suddenly inclined to play Devil's Advocate and ask "why not?"

Sure 2001 is a good, solid art movie with beautiful scope and sound to it. But why is it great?

[kevin]

Yep, I think at the moment that is where I think most people fall on 'Prometheus'.

Yep, with '2001' I'm not sure I could say why without coming up with what's already been said. I think all the main arguments for it have been made over the last whatever years and I don't know of anything that wouldn't ultimately fall back on those to some degree.

There's a definite quality to it's depiction of possible space travel and inhabiting space (for the period). But that's just the old argument that it was one of the first big science fiction films that treated 'space stuff' and came at it from some sort of science angle rather than playing about with saucers and making up technology to explain why people didn't float off. Figuring out you might need some sort of stasis for the long time journey's would take, etc

HAL9000 seems fairly much a perfect incarnation of the reliance on computers etc and the conversation about Artifici Intelligence that came to be.................etc, etc, etc (not to sound like Yul Brynner)

I tend to think the film is less a fully coherent story and film and more a huge bundle of ideas and themes wrapped up in one package that for a while kinda makes sense and then veers away. It is hard to try and answer at times because it seems to be a combination of aspects about it that collectively conspire to elevate it. Despite the aforementioned lack of an actual story!

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

I quite like the movie, although it doesn't really pick up for me until the Jupiter mission. Something about the moon/space station stuff just seems more dated than the Hal 9000 material. Or maybe it just takes that long to reach the point where I stop noticing how dated the movie feels.

While I too have read/heard much about 2001's genius, I find that I can't accept it unquestioningly. I don't deny its subtext (Man re-learning to walk, being toilet trained, eating 'baby food', etc.) or its visual scope. However parts of its cinematography feel somewhat arbitrary... a good example of this being in the final act as we are treated to various 'landscape' shots while Kubrick plays around with his color filters like he's discovered a new toy. Truth be told, much of the film does not feel very evenly polished. And what is 2001, when you come right down to it? Between Kubrick and Clark, you would probably get two very different answers (I've read the first two novels, and I have to say I found them disappointing next to the movie).

I've made this observation before: obviously no one would suggest a film like Star Trek TMP -or David Lynch's DUNE for that matter- was on the same level as 2001 and still hope to retain credibility. And yet, I am unable to cite what makes 2001 a (supposedly) superior movie, and certainly not without simply regurgitating the praise others have given it.

Which finally brings me back to Prometheus. The general 'consensus' seems to be (even among most of us here, if I recollect) that Prometheus won't be another 2001 or Blade Runner. Or in other words, it won't be a "oh I see, we just didn't understand it properly when it came out" kind of movie. But now I'm suddenly inclined to play Devil's Advocate and ask "why not?"

Sure 2001 is a good, solid art movie with beautiful scope and sound to it. But why is it great?

Excellent points!

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by kevin

Yep, I think at the moment that is where I think most people fall on 'Prometheus'.

Yep, with '2001' I'm not sure I could say why without coming up with what's already been said. I think all the main arguments for it have been made over the last whatever years and I don't know of anything that wouldn't ultimately fall back on those to some degree.

There's a definite quality to it's depiction of possible space travel and inhabiting space (for the period). But that's just the old argument that it was one of the first big science fiction films that treated 'space stuff' and came at it from some sort of science angle rather than playing about with saucers and making up technology to explain why people didn't float off. Figuring out you might need some sort of stasis for the long time journey's would take, etc

HAL9000 seems fairly much a perfect incarnation of the reliance on computers etc and the conversation about Artifici Intelligence that came to be.................etc, etc, etc (not to sound like Yul Brynner)

I tend to think the film is less a fully coherent story and film and more a huge bundle of ideas and themes wrapped up in one package that for a while kinda makes sense and then veers away. It is hard to try and answer at times because it seems to be a combination of aspects about it that collectively conspire to elevate it. Despite the aforementioned lack of an actual story!

More good points.

2001 was actually based on a short story that Clarke wrote for a sci-fi mag if I recall correctly.

On a side note, when I was listening to the commentary about ALIEN, regarding the NOSTROMO's landing on what would later be designated LV-426, they said that they always wondered what if would be like if a large starship like the Nostromo set down on a turbulent planet like Acheron. They said, in the 50's it was always these saucers making such squeaky clean landings. We wanted to try something different, and so we went with a slower, more deliberate approach....which ultimately ended up in an almost failed landing.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

But now I'm suddenly inclined to play Devil's Advocate and ask "why not?"

I'm kinda inclined to say it will depend on how much people in the future decide to revisit it and reappraise it and spend time deciding whether it offers more than it suggests or doesn't.

It's a function of time passing, therefore the answer is it could be looked at that way.

[samwiseb]

Originally Posted by kevin

I'm kinda inclined to say it will depend on how much people in the future decide to revisit it and reappraise it and spend time deciding whether it offers more than it suggests or doesn't.

It's a function of time passing, therefore the answer is it could be looked at that way.

Having said more or less the same thing about ST's various incarnations (which ones stick, versus which ones do not) I should have realized that was the only real answer.

[omegaman]

Originally Posted by martok2112

By default, as a sci-fi nut, I love me some 2001, even during its slow parts.

But Battlefield: Earth, and Supernova?!!!! Yikes! Total wastes of celluloid.

Actually I like Battlefield Earth. I think its a simple film, nothing like the book in many ways, but enjoyable to watch.