2001: A Space Odyssey reboot?
- Thread starter TrickyDickie
- Start date
I do think that in 2O1O(1984) they should have had the Americans wearing the spacesuits designed for 2OO1.
2O1O American spacesuits look retro and bulky in design compared to 2OO1 American spacesuits .
2O1O's Roy Scheider next to a blue 2OO1 spacesuit.
You can trace entire generations of sci-fi spacesuits back to 2001 through those elongated helmets. Babylon 5 (which started by using an actual suit from 2010, IIRC), nuBSG, the First Contact suits in Trek...
In 2010 they were all wearing Russian spacesuits, weren't they? Even the Americans?
It'd make sense, since the Leonov was the ship that got everyone out there, so they'd be using its technology.
Besides, Kubrick had all the sets from 2001 destroyed, so I doubt there were many suits left. (There was the blue one, which was later used on B5)
I know it's a long movie too, but isn't that sort of what Interstellar is?
Kubrick kicked so many shins to make that movie. So many shins... Shelley Duvall could barely walk after how that bastard tormented her.
So I guess the evidence that he was legitimately abusive (verbally and what he'd make them do) to his actors in various films is, what, made up? Or is it all acceptable because pretentious directors get a pass when it comes to being shitheads? Man, I wish I could make some artsy piece of shit films, then I could get away with being a giant prick and still get heaps of praise. The ends justify the means, I suppose. Its not like any great films have been made by directors who didn't treat their actors like shit, right?
Kubrick kicked so many shins to make that movie. So many shins... Shelley Duvall could barely walk after how that bastard tormented her.
What part of that post struck you as an ultra-serious commentary? Was it the silly wordplay off your typo of "Shinning" instead of "Shining" or the wink smiley at the end?So I guess the evidence that he was legitimately abusive (verbally and what he'd make them do) to his actors in various films is, what, made up? Or is it all acceptable because pretentious directors get a pass when it comes to being shitheads? Man, I wish I could make some artsy piece of shit films, then I could get away with being a giant prick and still get heaps of praise. The ends justify the means, I suppose. Its not like any great films have been made by directors who didn't treat their actors like shit, right?
And didn't the fact that I alluded to what a bastard Kubrick was to Shelley Duvall during filming clue you in to the fact that I was aware of his behavior and not disagreeing with you?
Russian 2O1O spacesuit
American 2O1O spacesuit
The Russian spacesuits were different designs in both helmet and suit from the American Spacesuits in 2O1O.
Director Peter Hyams could have had the production make more than two new 2OO1 spacesuits, like the hanging blue one and the orange one David Bowman(Keir Dullea) wore in the Discovery in 2O1O, for all of the actors playing the Americans in 2O1O.
Last edited:
All I've got to say is that my goddam stomach still hurts. So, right back at ya:
That factoid keeps getting repeated again and again, but is it true? Did Kubrick have the authority to order the destruction of sets and miniatures that were the property of MGM British Studios? And we know that some models and bits of sets survived the production. For example, the filming model of the Aries lunar shuttle was recently discovered and sold at auction. And one of the seats from the Moonbus was used on the Skydiver set in Gerry Anderson's U.F.O. TV series.
The movie wasn't based on the book per se. Kubrick and Clarke came up with a screenplay inspired by Clarke's short story "The Sentinel," after which Kubrick's film and Clarke's novel were developed as separate but concurrent projects. The novel was published after the film was released.
Unlike the movie, the novel goes into a great deal of exposition and technical detail, as per Arthur Clarke's usual writing style. I assume you haven't read it. You might want to give it a shot.
It comes from comments by Fredrick Ordway who was Kubrick's scientific adviser for the film.
And that a few things remain doesn't mean that the sets and props weren't destroyed. If the sets weren't destroyed, a seat couldn't have found it's way to the U.F.O sets. Secondly ti would have made things a lot easier for Peter Hymans when he made 2010 and they had to recreate the Discovery and it's sets from production stills from 2001.
Yep, I always like to think the novel as a companion piece. They diverge a bit towards the end, and the planets are different, but I think that if someone is confused about what's going on in the movie, they can learn a lot about the characters and their motivations by reading the book. Even the psychedelic sequence at the end makes more sense. In the movie, you just have visuals with no point of reference, but the novel does give one a sense of understanding on what's going on.
Maybe he felt it would look better onscreen if the Russians and Americans were all wearing white suits.
Peter Hyams could have had them white or silver as they were at Clavius Base in 2OO1.
I just think Peter Hyams made a bad decision not having the American characters in these 2OO1 spacesuits in 2O1O to both set them apart from the Russian characters and to tie the 2O1O "reality" to the original 2OO1 film.
Last edited:
Without the kind of bulky suit that the Soviet crewmen wore in 2010, how would Max have been able to perform that complex maneuver near the monolith?
The 2001 suits had limited thrusters, but I don't think they could have done that job.
The 2001 suits had limited thrusters, but I don't think they could have done that job.
A robot would have been a better choice to service the AE-35 unit. However, robots seem to be absent in the 2001: A Space Odyssey timeline. The pods have waldoes that HAL can command so why not just order HAL to do the job? Seems like an oversight if it can't. A plot contrivance that allows HAL to place the crew at risk.
The unit would needed to be designed for removal by a robot or pod Waldo. As depicted it was too small and delicate hence needing to removed by human hand.
What required it to be so small and delicate? The plot, that's what.
Similar threads
