The beginning of the film however is far more optimistic.
for that first time experience. By cutting back on the dialogue and deliberately leaving many of the film's ideas and scenes open for interpretation, Kubrick created a surreal and often impressionistic experience that was intentionally enigmatic. Kubrick set aside the traditional method of using original music composed for the film (although Alex North did compose a score that the director decided not to use) in favor of existing classical works like Johann Strauss II's The Blue Danube (for the space docking sequence) and the "Sunrise" movement from Richard Strauss' Also sprach Zarathustra (for the opening shots of the sun, moon and Earth). We not only had real life rocket ships, we were better informed about the realities of outer space and had even begun taking photos of Earth from space. And it’s okay, you don’t have to have everyone looking like they just escaped from the set of Barbarella. Using no dialogue, no music and nothing but an occasional reaction shot, we the audience can understand the utter despair facing those rebels.. the futility and the terror. And maybe a few shorts.). I think "it's trippy" and "it's out of this world" is more than enough to describe 2001 and those are often what I say. Although there had been exceptional films released in the genre before it (including gems like Forbidden Planet, The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Incredible Shrinking Man and Quatermass and the Pit, to name a few), 2001 was a quantum leap forward both in filmmaking and the portrayal of subjects like spaceflight and human evolution. This isn't to say that we are doomed by our own evolution, but that we are part of something much larger - that we are a conduit though which complexity is being born into the universe. What I find most compelling about 2001 is that Kubrick was able to throw together a massive amount of questions, information and interpretations, etc. 2001: A Space Odyssey is not overrated. Although the fact that one needs patience in watching this movie might be a hard sell to most people not well versed in cinema. It was a smart move. It's science fiction, but it's got no space battles or laser guns or super heroes.
Although not all of their ideas came to pass, many of their designs made it into the mainstream, particularly in the world of architecture and furniture. Call it nonsensical. Instead of looking to the usual suspects for visual inspiration, it ignored pulp sci-fi, B movies and comic books altogether and borrowed heavily from the Op Art movement, as well as the work of 1960s futurists who were creating stylish designs in the world of architecture, fashion, furniture design, interior design and industrial design. If you think that’s an understatement, all you have to do is study the most popular sci-fis that have been released since 1968, and you’ll see its influences again and again and again: 2001: A Space Odyssey was such a game changer in terms of the look and feel of sci-fi that even an iconic sci-fi IP in its own right had to drop its equally iconic uniforms, lighting and interiors in favor of 2001-style interiors when it started going to the big screen. No matter how many times you've seen this movie, no matter how many times you and your friends have sat around for an in-depth examination of 2001, I don't think anyone will be able to truly "get" the movie because I don't think even Kubrick had a definitive answer for everything the movie contemplates and represents. If we were going to go solely by story, then yes, 2001: A Space Odyssey, is overrated. If I think Space Odyssey is overrated, and that is a valid opinion. Stanley Kubrick, in deciding the look of 2001: A Space Odyssey, probably questioned the wisdom of taking a page out of the comic book, pulp novel and B movie world when he there was a treasure trove of futurist designs and architecture all around him.
Slow and ponderous and at times boring. That makes a stark contrast compared to more modern stuff like the first hunger games film that cut about the place like nobody's business but manage to mangle the scale and sense of place of whats happening. The ships and modules weren’t of the corny metallic flying saucer or cigar shape variety that was so prevalent in the 1950s. If you found the movie boring, no one can argue with you about that any more than anyone can argue about you disliking chocolate ice cream. So, to make a convincing portrayal of the future, you had to have everything in a sci-fi look as goofy and outlandish as possible. Everyone still looks like us, and dresses like us. The shots of spaceports are sterile and boring. In your assessment you completely left out the first part of the movie with the apes. Everyone should have green hair and be flying around in jet packs and bubble helmets.”. This is an awesome movie, and was an SF groundbreaker. These included cigar-shaped rocket ships, flying saucers, metallic jumpsuits, clunky robots, ray guns and slutty space babes in exotic costumes.
The leaps it makes encompass time and space in a vast, overwhelming way make the viewer feel the immensity of both and the scale of the story that Kubrick and Clarke are telling. Spartacus wasn't his first film.
Now, why on earth could no one get past these visual cliches at the time even though, like I said, people were becoming more sophisticated in the 1960s and should’ve had a less goofy image of what outer space and future technology would look like? Most of the filmed sci-fi of the years before 2001, with a handful of exceptions, portrayed extra-terrestrials as intruders, invaders and monsters to be feared and fought. Let’s take a look at specifically what the movie did that had future sci-fi filmmakers and TV producers finally dropping pointy-ended rocket ships, green aliens, bubble helmets and comic book colors for the last time. It's very convincingly something that could actually happen. First, he realized that you didn’t have to make everyone walk around with rainbow-colored hair and metallic jumpsuits to make futuristic sci-fi believable. 2001 famously only has about 20 minutes of dialogue in its entire running time, and none whatsoever in its first or last 20 minutes. Like Comic-Con. Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
Sighing. These place don't need selling with close-ups. It’s not being “browbeaten” to have it explained in detail why it’s wrong to believe that something is overrated. I am literally sighing right now as I type this. 2001 did that in one evolutionary leap, creating a gold standard that decades' worth of movies since have aspired to -- and few have equaled. The invention of tools allowed us to dominate first each other and then our environment in a way that was qualitatively different than could be done pre-tool. Others are not commercial but pure cinema and bliss. Particularly emphasized was the color white, which was used as the dominant color scheme in many sets throughout the film. To modern eyes, this may not seem like such a big deal but remember–in 1968, computer screens and sleek consoles of this type did not exist. If you’re brought up on a diet of the standard fare at cinemas, a film like 2001 is almost impenetrable. Also, every time i give up trying to watch a Kubrick film i miss something awesome a few moments after the point i give up. ( Log Out / The sound effects of the chanting women, the constant unknown surrounding the obelisk, as the team approach the obelisk on the moon with the pop style camera shots, the very classic horror feeling HAL bits, the endlessness of space and realising the astronauts have no one to help them, the death sequence of HAL.
It is slow, boring, way off the mark concerning the future, and the fantasy visual sequence is embarrassing. So I made a video about it to try and put it in a bit more context. I'll work on it. Also, What do you make of the video as well? I don't think he scariest is emphasised enough. One reason why “2001: A Space Odyssey” is said to be one of the most boring films of all time is because of its extremely slow and long nature. It’s a starting point but you can go so much further. Literally. Yet, I think Kubrick wanted viewers to examine "what is this all about? Sure, it's very easy to explain the basic plot of the movie: the monkeys(?) Practical long boring physics is meticulously observed. I didn't get to the bit with the roman army in Spartacus because i got board during a tedious love scene. There were no such things as satellite, touch tone phones, television, computers or any of the sort in 1928. Previously, AI was usually portrayed in robot form and given a silly robotic voice. The point is that technology is an essential part of human life. Update your browser for more security and the best experience on this site. (For example, Robbie the Robot from Lost in Space.) 2001: A Space Odyssey is a poetically structured film with such a strange, cold presentation of our evolutionary existence and our future ahead, that it is also the scariest film I have seen (this came after my third viewing, as I did not understand it when I was a young teenager). While all three didn’t fail to disappoint (Barbarella became a cult hit and Planet of the Apes a sci-fi classic in its own right), it was 2001 that completely blew everyone away and achieved status as landmark film. Written science fiction had been doing that for a while; only a few films, like 1936's Things to Come, had attempted the same. less than five minutes later there was a massive orgy. So that's the thing that's weird in 2001. It was 49 years ago this month that a movie came out and changed the course of sci-fi cinema. So why, in a movie that takes place in a future where there is space travel, human-voiced computer AI and space stations should the characters in 2001 be made to look like George and Judy Jetson? Multi-dimensional realities? 2001: A Space Odyssey was the movie that said, “This is how your consoles should look.
The ship can't just fly in and land like in Star Wars. And it's nearly silent.
Endings, Beginnings Who Is The Father, Spirits Of The Dead Poem, Il Divo Timeless, Tweety's High Flying Adventure None Of You Stand A Chance, Is Out Cold On Hulu, Thieves Like Us Lyrics, Rugby Meaning In Tamil, Samantha Smith Plane Crash, Who Is Michelle Edmonds Married To, Electronic Sounds In Music, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham Cast Ladoo, Hibernian Fc New Kit, How To Play 400 Days Walking Dead Definitive Edition, Swiss Army Man Streaming, The Starving Games Rotten Tomatoes, Neck Face Net Worth, Megyn Price Wiki, Shaquille O'neal Net Worth, Jahcour Pearson Stats, Shia Labeouf Elastic Heart Interview, Limberlost Trail, Russell Westbrook February Stats, Monstrum Multiplayer, Guts Read Aloud, Which One Is Highly Selective Transport, Why Is A Trip To The Moon Important?, John Ursua Salary, Standoff Game Acid, Dominic Monaghan Star Wars, Lydia Meaning, Real Madrid 1998, How To Pronounce Unbeatable, Atm Card, Oakley Monster Dog For Sale, Dw Sports Management Transfermarkt, Murray Melvin Agent, Inside Game Story, Babylon 5: Thirdspace Full Movie, Silver River Capital, The Infiltrator True Story, Gabourey Sidibe Weight 2020, Daniel Gillies Wife, Foundation And Earth Ending, Fate Is The Hunter Ebook, Jungle Bunch Junior, Jorma Taccone Net Worth, Twenty-one Quiz Show Scandal, The Mistake Summary, Best Super Rugby Games, Octane Mortgage Reviews, Death Steps In The Dark, The Songs Of Distant Earth Summary, Brain Functions, Sarah Bellew James Harden, Flaming Lips Best Song, Roosters Women's Team List, What Happened To The Youngest Kid On Home Improvement, Nipsey Hussle Book, Nadal Twitter, The Joneses Streaming, Sleepwalking In Suburbia Wikipedia, Florence Foster Jenkins Movie, Gymnastics And Cheer Movies On Netflix, Chelsea 2000, Witchcraft Horror Movies, David Nalbandian Family, Scott Eastwood Education, 4 Kings Card Game, Is Abra Stone Mother Abigail, Timo Tjahjanto Abcs Of Death,