I think the music is also pure genius here: Also Sprach Zarathustra, The Blue Danube, Ligeti's Requiem, Gayane's Adagio... all wonderfully fitting!!!
2001: A Space Odyssey
- Thread starter Sentience
- Start date
I wonder what it was like in the studio when Requiem was recorded.
The vocalists must have been like, "What the fuck? 10 minutes of ooooooooooeoeeeeeeeeeeOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"?
"No, here we get to go "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa".
"Oh, that's a relief."
It sorta begs the question, what is that song a requiem for? Intelligible lyrics?
The vocalists must have been like, "What the fuck? 10 minutes of ooooooooooeoeeeeeeeeeeOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"?
"No, here we get to go "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa".
"Oh, that's a relief."
It sorta begs the question, what is that song a requiem for? Intelligible lyrics?
Last edited:
I wonder what it was like in the studio when Requiem was recorded.
The vocalists must have been like, "What the fuck? 10 minutes of ooooooooooeoeeeeeeeeeeOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"?
"No, here we get to go "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa".
"Oh, that's a relief."
It sorta begs the question, what is that song a requiem for? Intelligible lyrics?
De gustibus non disputandum est.
De gustibus non disputandum est.
Oh yeah? Well, bonvoro alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo!
And I think we all know what THAT means.
That actually explains a LOT.
Eh, I think Ligeti's pieces are brilliant. Heck, let's just set aside the question of whether the works themselves are brilliant. Kubrick's selection of the music and the way it's used in the film were both brilliant.
Mi ŝatus helpi sed mi estas for de hejmo.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I like the Ligeti music as well (esp. Lux Aeterna). Just not pretending that it makes any kind of actual SENSE.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I like the Ligeti music as well (esp. Lux Aeterna). Just not pretending that it makes any kind of actual SENSE.
People used to say that about impressionism.
^ And they still do! 
^ And they still do!
I am sure some of them do. Art appreciation is essentially subjective.
One thing that's interesting is to juxtapose 2001 and 2010.
2001 is groundbreaking, artistic brilliance. It's not just a movie, it's an experience.
2010 is a good, solid space movie, the kind of thing that rates 2.5 or 3 stars. You can't compare it to its predacessor, you just have to appreciate it for what it is.
2001 is groundbreaking, artistic brilliance. It's not just a movie, it's an experience.
2010 is a good, solid space movie, the kind of thing that rates 2.5 or 3 stars. You can't compare it to its predacessor, you just have to appreciate it for what it is.
You can't really manufacture lightning, it just strikes, and you can't reliably get it in a sequel. Better to make good movies that people can enjoy on their own merits. "The Phantom Menace" will always be regarded as crap when compared with "Star Wars" and "Empire". But, seen in it's own right, it's a satisfactory movie.
2061, by Clarke, could be considered a starting point for a 2001 threequel, but it's been too long since I read it to know what tweaks would be required.
2061, by Clarke, could be considered a starting point for a 2001 threequel, but it's been too long since I read it to know what tweaks would be required.
Maybe it sort of is. But when you think about it, the fight scenes were well done, the podrace was worth watching, and a lot of the characters were good. Yes, there was Jar-jar, but the earlier movies had C3PO. Like it or not, Star Wars does target a certain demographic.
Last edited:
First, a permaban against anyone who wrote, directed or produced a Star Trek or Disney Star Wars production in this century. Second, no "we're going to subvert expectations" crap by hiring someone like Tarantino, for example.
Third, permaban on James Cameron. One can guess he believes his bloated work is thought-provoking, and/or important enough to make him a right fit for a sequel, but it is not.
Regarding approach: extend the message and visual tone of the original, and by all means, do not dumb down the film with spectacle for the sake of it, and an obnoxious, Williams-esque score anytime something important happens.
Was there any truth to the rumor that Tom Hanks wanted to do a 3001 film? IIRC, he'd both direct it and play Frank Poole.
Indeed.
I mean, I can understand the need for security, but HAL should have been able to tell Frank and Dave about the monolith after Discovery was launched, at which point security concerns would be basically irrelevant.
Fun fact: Not only were all four of the Beatles huge fans of this movie, but John Lennon even suggested that it be shown in a temple, on a continuous loop, 24/7.
Last edited:
It's already been pointed out upthread that Frank and Dave had done that time-delayed television interview. They weren't closed off from the rest of humanity. Indeed, the AE-35 debacle involved the very question of whether the best way to ensure the objectives as programmed was to cut off communication.Indeed.
I mean, I can understand the need for security, but HAL should have been able to tell Frank and Dave about the monolith after Discovery was launched, at which point security concerns would be basically irrelevant.
Fun fact: Not only were all four of the Beatles huge fans of this movie, but John Lennon even suggested that it be shown in a temple, on a continuous loop, 24/7.
Telling Frank and Dave about the Monolith wasn't an option, because HAL couldn't secure the lines of communication. Even mission control didn't know enough to be trusted, or otherwise they never would have reported back that it looked like HAL was in error about the imminent failure of the AE-35. Therefore, apparently the twin computer was not programmed with the secret objective or at least the part about the need to suppress information from Frank and Dave, which was another error on the government's part.
3001 was my favorite of the lot. Get rid of the HAL/Dave stuff.
Similar threads
