They almost did. Tom Hanks wanted to make a 3001 movie - both directing it, and playing Frank Poole.
Just watched "2010"
- Thread starter Tulin
- Start date
They almost did. Tom Hanks wanted to make a 3001 movie - both directing it, and playing Frank Poole.
And again, I know all of that but given the restrictions I have, it'd still be nice to have the film on DVD. It'd certainly be better than not having it at all. I don't feel that "2010" was the greatest thing ever set to celluloid, but for me it was enjoyable and brings back some good, good memories of the people with whom I first saw it. Things that transcend the technical qualities or lack thereof in existing media.Yes I did remember what you said.But I have an up-converting DVD player right now.
That won't make much difference here. Not with DVDs as crappy as the existing versions of 2010. Remember: *they aren't anamorphic*.
Hanks has some interesting casting near-misses. (For what it's worth, I think he'd still be fine as Frank Poole.)
For a while in the early '90s Hanks was attached to an adaptation of Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land that never went anywhere. I thought he was too old for Valentine Michael Smith then.
Then, of course, Hanks was offered Zefram Cochrane for Star Trek: First Contact, but the shooting schedule conflicted with his schedule for That Thing You Do!
I noticed that as well! I was surprised they would make such a huge mistake.
The other scene that made me kinda go
was when Max suddenly starts freaking out on the Discovery because he thinks the odour he is smelling is human remains. Is that some kind of weird Russian thing or something? His reaction was WAY over the top and came suddenly from out of nowhere.Werid.
^
Actually, I always felt it was connected to the thing with the proverbs I mentioned earlier on as well as Tanya's decision to send Max on that crazy mission: I always got the feeling it was trying to avoid making the Russians look too good in comparison to the American guys.
Think of it: Not too long before the scene where Max freaks out there's a scene where Walter freaks out because he has the feeling he can't breathe. And it's ok, really, because from what I recall, he wasn't an astronaut. And this whole experience was very, very new to him.
Max, on the other hand, IIRC, had quite a bit of experience in space. I saw no reason for him to freak out like that unless the filmmakers were trying to equalize the score, if you will. Again, part of this assumption stems from the timing of Max's reaction.
Actually, I always felt it was connected to the thing with the proverbs I mentioned earlier on as well as Tanya's decision to send Max on that crazy mission: I always got the feeling it was trying to avoid making the Russians look too good in comparison to the American guys.
Think of it: Not too long before the scene where Max freaks out there's a scene where Walter freaks out because he has the feeling he can't breathe. And it's ok, really, because from what I recall, he wasn't an astronaut. And this whole experience was very, very new to him.
Max, on the other hand, IIRC, had quite a bit of experience in space. I saw no reason for him to freak out like that unless the filmmakers were trying to equalize the score, if you will. Again, part of this assumption stems from the timing of Max's reaction.
RE: the gravity question - it is something I had noticed long ago, but I rationalized it along this line: They were in the habit of using something akin to velcro in the areas away from the rotating section of the Lianov. Walking on it and a Now, that may not adequately address the floating pen, while other objects didn't ... but it sorta helped. Then again, I didn't worry too much about it.
What I did dislike was heavey-handed moral about cooperation between almost mortal enemies. It is a good idea, but ... when they have to browbeat you with it, the impact is lost quickly.
What I did dislike was heavey-handed moral about cooperation between almost mortal enemies. It is a good idea, but ... when they have to browbeat you with it, the impact is lost quickly.
My impression was that Max reacted that way out of a fear of death or encountering it. His freak out wasn't that hard to believe for me. He may have been an experienced man in space but he also may not have faced death or seen a dead body before. The smell of the rotting meat called that possibility to his mind.
Didn't they all wear velcro shoes (or something) on those ships to keep themselves on the floor? Then again, while that would explain the two characters, surely there were other things around like clipboards or coffee cups that would be floating like the pens. Hm...
Well, in 2001, they went with the "velcro floors" explanation. You can see Frank and Dave playing it up while the walk out into the Pod bay, for instance, taking awkward, swinging steps. On the other hand, there were some practical things they couldn't get past (for instance, why they bothered with climbing the ladders when they could've just pushed themselves off and used them to stop), and I'm fairly certain that they were hunched over the Pod bay workbench in a rather gravity-bound way while they were examining the AE-38 unit. Of course, in 2010, they just sort of took it as read that their feet were stuck to the ground, and didn't really bother to give the impression that it was just the feet (such as when Floyd stormed onto the Leonov's bridge at the beginning of the pen scene, or when he was leaning against one of the pods when Chandra explained why HAL broke).
The funny thing is the monitors in the set were problably a more modern and cheaper approach - look at TMP vs TWOK - they when from rear projection to the monitors and there was 2 - 3 year production date difference between the two.
Also I believe they had to recerate the Discovery models and sets from scratch because Kubrick had everything destroyed after 2001 was made (not sure if this extended to the production designs)
But how long was Sylvester on screen for in the original though? Apart from the just sitting there for his trip to the moon he had 3 -5 minutes entering the space station, the phone call home, running into the Russians then the discussions about TMA but is there much after that that an it matters if he wasn't brought back?
IRT to the cold war angle, I think it got mentioned last time 2010 came up in here that came about because of the studio?
Just on that point, I have to explain something. I think 2010 pales in comparison to the first film by virtue of 2001 just being SO incredible. I have head Kubrick wanted each frame of the film to look like a painting and I have to say, just visually it could not really be topped. I guess I shouldn't judge the sequel as harshly as I did, since 2001 is a seminal piece of both science fiction and cinema. NOTHING can stand next to it and not suffer by the comparison in some way.
Which was why I figured you would have wanted clarification... because you hadn't recalled.
Well, the key thing is that he would have only been 16 years older than he was in the first film. Not a dramatic change of age, and for people who didn't understand that the character was in both films, it could have made a difference. Remember that Floyd's part took place in 1999 (18 months before the scenes on Discovery), so a period of about 11 years apart between when we first see him in 2001 and the end of 2010.
Most people I knew back in 1984 had no idea that Scheider's character and Sylvester's were the same person. And one could have said the same thing about any of the characters in 2001... they all had very small speaking parts. So they could have replaced Dullea and Rain in 2010 without issue too... other than running into the same problem with the Bowman character that they obviously had with Floyd.
True, and actually most of 2010 was heavy-handed in it's approach... specially compared to 2001.
Take the trip to the space station in 2001 as an example. Kubrick put Floyd on a commercial (Pan Am) space plane. A flight in which he was the only passenger. Kubrick knew that most of the audience had taken commercial flights before, which are usually full of people... but this one wasn't. Same with the shuttle to the moon, Floyd was the only passenger on a vehicle designed to carry many. Many people miss this, but this was design to convey how important his trip was.
Another example is the conversation with the Russians. This is one of the most beautiful scenes in the movie. Floyd stops on his way to eat at the Howard Johnson's to make a quick call home. When he exits the phone booth, the Howard Johnson's is to the left, but he goes right. He wanted to talk to the Russians. He already knew about the Russian transport incident and knew they would bring it up. He wanted them to. The whole chance meeting was designed to sell the outbreak story by him denying it when they brought it up (which he knew they would). In a movie of so few words, this small scene is massive... and Kubrick doesn't waste any of it.
But 2010 took great pains to make sure that everyone knows what is happening and even what had happened in 2001. Where Kubrick was subtle to the point where 90% of the people watching had missed important aspects of the story, Hyams didn't want anyone walking out of the theater without knowing all the plot twists.
So yeah, you are so right about him being heavy-handed.
Oh, the technology they used was certainly more modern. And I'm sure it was seen as a real advancement in many ways since it was not only cheaper but also a lot more flexible and less prone to break (I remember reading that the wheel in 2001 blew out many a bulb in the projectors they were using).
Granted, it's always easier to look back and judge. But I still think it's a pity they didn't realize or didn't think the sleeker effect of the rear projection ON SCREEN was worthwhile.
I think (but I'm not quite sure) the designs were also destroyed. I think Kubrick was quite thorough. I have a book on the making of 2001 (don't remember the title right now) where I believe they mention the drawings in there were re-created.
It's true he wasn't on for long. But for me, anyway, he managed to be memorable. I thought he perfectly played the part of the bureaucrat in space. He's charming but only to a point since he never really becomes very likeable - which IMHO he shouldn't. That's exactly the way Sylvester plays him, and I think he has the looks to back it up.
Now Scheider, to me, really comes off as too likeable. Floyd not only LOOKS completely different, he also FEELS completely different to me the way Scheider portrays him.
It's possible that I didn't realize this was the same character either the first time I saw 2010 but I can't quite recall.
Well, it certainly wouldn't surprise me...
In regard to the Cold War angle, I've always thought that while ACC was being optimistic that the US/Soviet quarrel was something the two countries would grow out of by 2010, the movie was made during the Reagan evil-empire/Russian invasion of Afghanistan era and "peaceful co-existence" simply wouldn't have been that believable at the time for many people... and since it was a holiday release the whole peace-on-earth angle played well at the time for the non-genre audience.
I like the movie... it's not the artistic statement that 2001 is of course, but it wasn't trying to be. It's certainly less trying lol.
And I never thought of the pen bit as being proof of velcro floors -- I just chalk it up as a rather spectacular frak-up lol.
I like the movie... it's not the artistic statement that 2001 is of course, but it wasn't trying to be. It's certainly less trying lol.
And I never thought of the pen bit as being proof of velcro floors -- I just chalk it up as a rather spectacular frak-up lol.
Don't get me wrong. While I tend to prefer the more subtle approach where not everything has to be explained to the audience, I can appreciate the position the producers were in on "2010". They have to follow a classic film decades later, presenting a story to an entirely new generation. Plus, if the studio exerts that kind of pressure to introduce such an unnecessary plot element as the infamous Cold War angle... well, you as a director, etc don't really have much choice. In the end I enjoy both films, albeit for vastly different reasons.
Well, we aren't really talking about decades... we're talking about a 16 year period. I work with computers that are about 16 years old. I have clothes that are 16 years old. 16 years ago was like yesterday for me.
Granted, the 16 years between 1968 and 1984 represented a water shed in culture which makes 1984 seem a lot closer to us today than 1968, but many of the same people who work on 2001 were still working in the industry when 2010 was made. Kubrick was still making films in 1984. Trumbull was still doing special effects in 1984. 16 years isn't that long.
But maybe you are pretty young... in which case, sure, 16 years seems like an eternity. But if you live to be 64 you'll have lived through 4 such periods, or if your lucky enough to make it to 80 you'll have seen 5 16 year periods. But if you are barely over 16 now, then that might seem like a lifetime.
Here's the thing... back in the 1960s when 2001 was in production, the best minds in astronautics were not only asked to provide ideas, most of them wrote about their ideas within the primary journals of the day. I can recall reading articles from 1966, 1967 and 1968 on aspects of the Discovery or the spacestation that were being developed for the film in scientific journals. 2001 was an exciting production even outside of the film industry.
Jump forward 16 years and the same can't be said for 2010.
But you are right about the studios getting their hands into the mix. Studios don't make money by aiming high and hoping to find an audience, they aim as low as possible to hit as large an audience as they can. Time and again they take an unexpected hit and dumb it down to try to over sell sequels. And 2010 is a textbook example of this. Studios are in the business of making money... not art.
And in that way, these two movies are not decades apart, their centuries!
Me pretty young?I watched the space shots in the earliest days on TV. Using the term "decades" was a compromise, owing to the fact there was a gap of 16 years between films but a seemingly far greater chasm between the films themselves.
Well you are only half the age of Christopher Lee.
Similar threads
- Locked
