2001 on the Big Screen

[Christopher]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

Fun fact: The centrifuge set in the Discovery was 'real', in that it was actually built complete, all the way around, and rotated just like a real life version would.

Well, not just like. The real thing would've rotated at a constant velocity to create a sensation of weight in freefall conditions, with "down" being outward from the axis in every direction. The centrifuge set only rotated as needed when the actors were walking or jogging through it, so that they'd stay on the bottom; when they were standing still, so was the centrifuge. So it was using real gravity to fake the appearance of fake gravity.

[JustAFriend]

Saw it when it premiered in 1968. In 70mm Cinerama.

The moon and Jupiter sequences looked 3-D in 70mm.

I've seen it in re-releases on standard movie screens and you just have no idea how much less you're seeing. Shame that Cinerama didn't stick around.

[Procutus]

Inspired by Hambone's original post, I have just placed my DVD into the player and have settled in to enjoy!

[tighr]

I've always wanted to see 2061 on the big screen, maybe one day they'll get around to filming it. Although, I want it to be good. 2010 was a disappointment.

[Christopher]

I liked Hyams's 2010, although his decision to make it more topical by ramping up the Cold War tensions made it very dated in retrospect, and I could've done without the bits where people were standing around normally in the zero-gravity parts of Discovery.

[ManOnTheWave]

A local theatre ran it for one showing last summer and I missed it because of family stuff. No possible way I could have made it, but I really do regret it. There are just too many sequences in 2001: A Space Odyssey that deserve to be seen on a big screen. Hope it comes back this year.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Christopher wrote:

---

I could've done without the bits where people were standing around normally in the zero-gravity parts of Discovery.

Who knows, perhaps everyone now wears grip shoes?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I've watched it on TV, and I really don't think there's any point in sitting through it at all except on a big screen.

[Set Harth]

tighr wrote:

---

I've always wanted to see 2061 on the big screen, maybe one day they'll get around to filming it. Although, I want it to be good. 2010 was a disappointment.

2061 was a disappointment.

[RevDMV]

How cool, I saw it at special showing at the Cinerama Dome in LA some time in the 80's. I forget who it was but someone involved in the production did a question and answer before the show.

As others have said there is just no way to compare seeing it on the big screen.

[Enterprise is Great]

I saw it at the Cinerama Dome as well back in the 80's. We were probably there at the same time. That was the first time I saw it. I've seen it on tv since then but that pales in comparison to seeing it on the big screen.

[nightwind1]

JustAFriend wrote:

---

Saw it when it premiered in 1968. In 70mm Cinerama.

The moon and Jupiter sequences looked 3-D in 70mm.

I've seen it in re-releases on standard movie screens and you just have no idea how much less you're seeing. Shame that Cinerama didn't stick around.

I saw it in re-release when I was in 8th grade, which would have been '74.

The theater was a Cinerama theater.

The same theater is also where I saw Logan's Run, Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Alien, Escape from New York, Flash Gordon, Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, Return of the Jedi, Big Trouble in Little China, Terminator, Aliens...



I miss the River Hills Theater.

[The Mirrorball Man]

tighr wrote:

---

I've always wanted to see 2061 on the big screen, maybe one day they'll get around to filming it. Although, I want it to be good. 2010 was a disappointment.

If you want it to be good, the director will have to stray quite far away from the novel.

[RJDiogenes]

I got to see it in the theater in May 1971 for my 10th birthday. It was fantastic. Clarke was already my favorite writer then; I had read not only 2001, but Expedition to Earth, Childhood's End and Islands In The Sky, among others.

It's kind of amazing, in the current social climate, to think that there's a big-budget, epic movie like this that can only be best appreciated on the big screen-- and it has absolutely no violence or corruption whatsoever. It couldn't be made today. If somebody made 2001 today, it would be re-imagined so that the Monolith blows up the Moon, Discovery is on a mission of revenge, the interiors look like a factory basement with leaking steam pipes, Bowman is a drunk, Poole is a convicted child molester and their uniforms are leather bondage gear.

Procutus wrote:

---

The best science-fiction film ever made, IMO.

Possibly the only Science Fiction film ever made.

Procutus wrote:

---

There was an excellent book on the making of the movie that was in print, way back in the 70s, and it's likely that was mentioned. The book also contained various script elements that Clarke had written, but were ultimately left out of the film.

The Lost Worlds of 2001. I have it and refer to it often. The best parts are the lost chapters from the novel that describe the alien civilization behind the Monolith and their representative Clindar. "Skyrock," "Cosmopolis" et cetera. They are among the most exotic and wonderful descriptions of alien worlds that I've ever read.

[Christopher]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

If you want it to be good, the director will have to stray quite far away from the novel.

You know, that's something worth considering. Both of the movies to date had considerable input from Arthur C. Clarke. The original book and movie were parallel projects developed simultaneously, a full collaboration between Clarke and Kubrick, although the two versions of the story went in very different directions reflecting their creators' distinct sensibilities (the novel explains everything in meticulous detail, the film avoids explaining anything). 2010 was a book first, but Peter Hyams corresponded extensively with Clarke over email (which was still quite a novelty at the time), so the author still contributed a lot to the content of the film.

But now Clarke is no longer with us, so any further film adaptations would be unable to avail themselves of his participation and guidance. It just wouldn't be the same.