Five Decades of 2001

[Gary7]

To be fair, our PC and Mainframe computer displays are about were they were depicted in the film.

The only thing really lacking was touch-screen functionality with the displays. But to really get a feeling of the design aesthetic, you have to watch 2010: The Year We Make Contact. The Leonov is so clunky and "old fashioned" looking, whereas the Discovery has a much cleaner, minimalist design while looking more futuristic. And in terms of interfacing, it's far more productive to give higher level commands by voice to a computer intelligence that then carries out everything else (so the human being isn't tasked with running fingers all over a console flipping toggles and depressing switches).

Though there are some differences between the book and movie - one has the Discovery going to Jupiter, the other Saturn, when the AE-35 fails and the decision to disconnect HAL.

A common occurrence, where a movie shortens or eliminates some elements from the book due to time constraints.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Though there are some differences between the book and movie - one has the Discovery going to Jupiter, the other Saturn, when the AE-35 fails and the decision to disconnect HAL.

In "The Lost Worlds of 2001", I seem to recall ACC gave the reasons for putting the monolith on Iapetus as being because the solar wind termination shock and the beginning of the interstellar medium was believed to be between Jupiter and Saturn as well as Iapetus' high variability in albedo being a signal for the presence of a monolith. We now know the termination shock is much more distant at over 100 AU. I loaned the book to someone and never got it back. Logs on to Amazon...

The 2010, 2061 and 3001 novels ignored the first novel and were, in effect, sequels to the movie.

 

[Marc]

A common occurrence, where a movie shortens or eliminates some elements from the book due to time constraints.

except the book was written the same time as the film.

Have a look a wiki this morning Saturn and Jupiter being swapped was production issue (FX designer wasn't satisfied he could do a good depiction of Saturn).

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

except the book was written the same time as the film.

Have a look a wiki this morning Saturn and Jupiter being swapped was production issue (FX designer wasn't satisfied he could do a good depiction of Saturn).

Wasn't that Douglas Trumbull?

 

[Marc]

Wasn't that Douglas Trumbull?

Yep.

So you when you have some-one like Trumbull working for some-one like Kubrick if it doesn't look the way intended it's not gonna make the film

 

[Ethros]

I'll never understand what happned with that jump cut, esp how people rave about it. The camera man can't even keep it in shot, and then it awkwardly cuts to another take that also doesn't work.

 

[Gary7]

Yep.

So you when you have some-one like Trumbull working for some-one like Kubrick if it doesn't look the way intended it's not gonna make the film

I could've sworn I read some interview with Clarke and he remarked about being able to embellish a bit where the movie couldn't due to time constraints. True, he was writing the book with Kubrick during the creation and production of the movie, but after the movie production was wrapped up, Kubrick's collaboration with Clarke rapidly tapered off. Then post-release of the movie, the book was published (I believe in the same year).

From Wikipedia:

Although the novel and film were developed simultaneously, the novel follows early drafts of the film, from which the final version of the film deviated. These changes were often for practical reasons relating to what could be filmed economically, and a few were due to differences of opinion between Kubrick and Clarke. The most notable differences are a change in the destination planet from Saturn to Jupiter, and the nature of the sequence of events leading to HAL's demise. Stylistic differences may be more important than content differences. Of lesser importance are the appearance of the monolith, the age of HAL, and the novel giving names to various spacecraft, prehistoric apes, and HAL's inventor.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Yep.

So you when you have some-one like Trumbull working for some-one like Kubrick if it doesn't look the way intended it's not gonna make the film

It seems Trumbull is still a bit pissed off that Kubrick got the Oscar for best visual effects and not him.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...e-oscar-2001-special-effects-douglas-trumbull

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I'll never understand what happned with that jump cut, esp how people rave about it. The camera man can't even keep it in shot, and then it awkwardly cuts to another take that also doesn't work.

Are you talking about the bone and the transition to the satellite?

Why do people rave about it? Because it's brilliant.

The so-called awkwardness as you put it works because it captures and evokes the visceral feeling of disorientation that's common for people to have when watching an object flying through the air, especially one that might hit them on the head when it comes back down.

 

[Galileo7]

I do enjoy 2OO1:A Space Odyssey because of Kubrick's use of amazing production designs [Pan Am Orion III, Aries I-B, Moon Bus, Discovery I sets], his direction and just the believable event of this journey to Jupiter with the mystery of the Monoliths. My favorite Star Trek film is and has always been Star Trek:The Motion Picture which also had amazing new production design of the newly refit Enterprise and the mystery of V'ger. Two different films with some elements that still fascinate me. I even like Peter Hyams 2O1O sequel attempt to resolve the mystery of the events of 2OO1.

 

[BillJ]

A great movie that I rewatch about once a year.

I can't imagine seeing it on anything less than the big screen.

My 50" 4K TV does a more than adequate job.

 

[Gary7]

I do enjoy 2OO1:A Space Odyssey because of Kubrick's use of amazing production designs [Pan Am Orion III, Aries I-B, Moon Bus, Discovery I sets], his direction and just the believable event of this journey to Jupiter with the mystery of the Monoliths. My favorite Star Trek film is and has always been Star Trek:The Motion Picture which also had amazing new production design of the newly refit Enterprise and the mystery of V'ger. Two different films with some elements that still fascinate me. I even like Peter Hyams 2O1O sequel attempt to resolve the mystery of the events of 2OO1.

There is a nuance to ST:TMP that few people can appreciate today. That is... the enormous GAP between the ending of TOS and the appearance of the movie. It was so highly anticipated. And the cinematography was designed to capitalize on that, with the overt "tour" we get through the eyes of Admiral James T. Kirk as Scotty maneuvers the travel pod the long way around the Enterprise. Oh, what a stunning unveiling of that gorgeous spacecraft. There was all this fear people had about what design changes might be done to the Enterprise. Would it be faithful to the original and become a logical evolution of it? I really couldn't have envisioned the NCC-1701A any better. This was such a stunning refit that I can't help but feel more drawn to it than the original.

So, when you're a millenial and watching ST:TMP after all the other glitzy CGI SFX laden sci-fi movies of today, you completely miss that important nuance the movie achieved. Also, its not comparable to 2001:ASO, but then again it shouldn't. Two very different styles and eras of movie making. Each have their place.

2010:TYWMC had a very tough act to follow. But despite all that, I think it did a fine job. While the Discovery and space pods weren't absolutely perfect recreations, they were close enough. It was wonderful how they got the original voice over artist for HAL and Keir Dullea to reprise his role as Bowman. Those two factors alone make the movie worthwhile to see. Also, John Lithgow was terrific even though his queasy panic mode seemed well out of character for a man of his education and experience. Thankfully that was short lived. I also liked the introduction of Dr. Chandra and his relationship with HAL got a wonderful amount of screen time. So well done.

 

[2takesfrakes]

I was all set to Like your post until you threw in that part! That said, I generally don't watch movies in one sitting on home video these days...and my 2001 DVD comes with a handy built-in intermission, so....

We recently had a meaty discussion about the film in The Classic/Retro TV Thread, starting about here.

>>SNORT!!!<<
How many "likes" have I lost in this way, I find myself wondering, now? My portion, I'm sure ...

 

[BillJ]

What happened to the UHD version that was supposed to release in May? It is completely gone from Amazon.

 

[crookeddy]

So, has anyone seen the new "unrestored" edition? Does it actually look different?

So far I've seen 2001 on TV (was a kid and didn't get it, also it looked awful), on blu-ray (figured it out, and it looked AMAZING), in a custom digital print at the CineramaDome (also AMAZING), at the Hollywood Bowl with live orchestra (chills), and now I have the itch to see the latest "unrestored" restoration.

 

[Marc]

2010:TYWMC had a very tough act to follow. But despite all that, I think it did a fine job. While the Discovery and space pods weren't absolutely perfect recreations, they were close enough.

When you consider that Kubrick not only had the sets for 2001 completely destroyed after the filming was finished, all the design etc suffered the same fate so they had to recreated the sets based on production photos, it was a pretty good effort.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Its like the difference between a Torte--

....and a Twinkie stuffed with other ingredients in an attempt to upscale it to the level of a Torte--

 

[Gary7]

When you consider that Kubrick not only had the sets for 2001 completely destroyed after the filming was finished, all the design etc suffered the same fate so they had to recreated the sets based on production photos, it was a pretty good effort.

I know, when I read about that I fumed a little inside... to think Kubrick was so paranoid to destroy all that wonderful work. He couldn't take the premise that props and sets might be re-appropriated and utilized by B-movie productions. Since he was abhorrent to sequels, he concluded they'd never be used again for a movie, but sadly didn't consider that they might be worthy as museum pieces at some later point. 2010 did come out and of course, if they could have spent money licensing the use of old 2001 sets it would've been a win-win.

I did read somewhere that Kubrick didn't have absolutely everything destroyed. There were some prop miniatures taken or given to various people (mini Discovery & space pod, space suit w/helmet, Parker "space pen", etc.). But there was photographic evidence of some props tossed into the scrap hopper. That photo where the hub of the space station was sitting in a yard exposed to the elements... so tragic. The "hero" space pod with all the lights and switches inside would've been so great to keep.

 

[crookeddy]

Does 70mm actually make a difference on a smaller screen? It obviously has the ability to be blown up onto giant screens, but can people honestly tell the difference between a 35mm projection and 70mm on a regular movie theater screen?

 

[2takesfrakes]

Not to burst anyone's C-3PO bubble, or anything, but I heard that when it first came out, Anthony Daniels saw 2001: A Space Odyssey and was so disatisfied with the movie that he walked out after only ten minutes and demanded his money back!