That would mean bring back Disco.
Revisiting Space: 1999...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
That would mean bring back Disco.
Space:1999 was the most expensive TV series of its time, and by a large margin
Not if you compare it to a Kubrick movie. We don't know what a Kubrick TV series would have been like because he never made one.
The horror, the horror...
You wrote "Kubrick naver made a low budget TV series". Space 1999 was not low budget
It wasn't low budget for a tv series, but compared to a big screen movie, it was low budget. The point is that Kubrick never had to be contented with so low a budget.
It's his penance for being on "Space: 1999".Yes I remember that. Why does he always play the bad guy?
But he was a good guy on "Space 1999".
I wasn't talking about budget
. My point is they tried to make an artistic product without having the skills. They tried to imitate Kubrick and the end result was somewhat disappointing.I wasn't talking about budget
I don't think they tried to imitate Kubrick. KubricK only made one sci.fi movie, just as he made pretty much one movie of each sort. One about war in Vietnam, one about war in Napoleon time, one about brainwashing and dehumanization, one about first world war, one about nuclear bombs, one about Spartacus. You see? This movie represent only one facet among many.
And even when he had a big budget and big name stars he wasn't above turning out a stinker (eyes wide shut anyone?).
Space: 1999 was obviously riffing on Kubrick in many ways. Jesus, just for starters, the scene aboard the Eagle taking Koenig up to the space station in "Breakaway" is a straight-up lift from 2001. 
Space: 1999 was obviously riffing on Kubrick in many ways. Jesus, just for starters, the scene aboard the Eagle taking Koenig up to the space station in "Breakaway" is a straight-up lift from 2001.
To me that's what is normally called a tribute. They have those in all major movies.
That's fine. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing. I do see that scene as a tribute. But I also interpret that tribute scene as an open acknowledgement of just how heavily influenced by Kubrick that Space: 1999 was. I personally don't think that Space: 1999 is only simply derivative of 2001, but it's not unreasonable to view the situation as @Skipper did.
By the way, the success and legacy of 2001 owe themselves in no small part to Clarke. The filmmaking was Kubrick's, and it's a mistake to underestimate Kubrick's skill and the influence that he's had on film generally. But the story was due to both men, using Clarke's pre-existing material as the jumping-off point, mainly "The Sentinel" but also with some helpings of the theme of Childhood's End, I'd say.
Re-reading the Destination Moonbase Alpha book last night, I spotted that when Freiberger was hired in response to ITC New York's demand for an American producer, Abe Mandell said "Why is he available now?"
To which the response has to be "We have to hire from the people available now!" But equally, in October, anyone good was full time in a series. FF wasn't.
To which the response has to be "We have to hire from the people available now!" But equally, in October, anyone good was full time in a series. FF wasn't.
To measure the importance of Kubrick in the making of the film you only have to compare it to its sequel (2010) made WITHOUT Kubrick's directing. It sucks.
Similar threads
