Superior sci-fi sequals?

[Kegg]

The Blu-Ray is nice -- but having now seen the film projected in 70mm -- well, to crib a tagline, there is no comparison.

I still cherish the time I got to see the film in 70mm.

That was... actually, a good decade ago now (yes, yes, they did a 2001 showing).

Incredible stuff really.

What I love are people that always complain about the "two-hour-Enterprise-flyby" of TMP and then say how 2001 was a friggin' masterpiece.

I like that flyby.

 

[Harvey]

I'm pretty happy living in Los Angeles right now -- the American Cinematheque seems to have regular showings of the film in 70mm, and it is a superb print, too.

 

[Greg Cox]

I remember seeing 2001 at the Cinerama in Seattle when I was just a kid. I admit the ending flew way over my head. Conditioned by the fifties scifi flicks I was used to, I kept expecting actual aliens to show up and explain the plot via some old-fashioned expository dialogue: "Greetings, earthman. Allow me to explain our master plan . . . ."

I saw it on the big screen again in college and got caught up in the epic sweep of it all.

Never tried to watch it on tv.

 

[Expo67]

I saw 2001 three times on the cinema screen. Once in 1980. The other time in 1996. And for the third time in 2010.

I've been lucky to have seen it in Cinerama as well as in 70mm.

It is definately an experience.

And a real spiritual one at that.

 

[Gepard]

It's not a story about people. It's about marvelling at vast expanses of time and space . . . .

I find that a puzzling defense, given that it has characters and a sembalance of a story involving them. If it's all about marvling at time and space, make a damn 2-hour VFX reel and leave it at that.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's not a story about people. It's about marvelling at vast expanses of time and space . . . .

I find that a puzzling defense, given that it has characters and a sembalance of a story involving them. If it's all about marvling at time and space, make a damn 2-hour VFX reel and leave it at that.

It's not just an special effects show. There is a story, but it's not about individual characters the way that conventional stories are. It's vast saga, spanning hundreds of thousands of years, about the evolution of humanity as directed by some unknowable alien intelligence. Humanity as a species is the protagonist.

Dave Bowman or Heywood Floyd are no more the subjects of the movie than the apemen at the beginning of the film, or the astronauts who stumble onto the monolith on the moon. It's science fiction in the tradition of Olaf Stapledon, involving the sweep of history, instead of a story about specific individuals confronting some sort of crisis.

 

[JarodRussell]

It's not a story about people. It's about marvelling at vast expanses of time and space . . . .

I find that a puzzling defense, given that it has characters and a sembalance of a story involving them. If it's all about marvling at time and space, make a damn 2-hour VFX reel and leave it at that.

It's not just an special effects show. There is a story, but it's not about individual characters the way that conventional stories are. It's vast saga, spanning hundreds of thousands of years, about the evolution of humanity as directed by some unknowable alien intelligence. Humanity as a species is the protagonist.

Dave Bowman or Heywood Floyd are no more the subjects of the movie than the apemen at the beginning of the film, or the astronauts who stumble onto the monolith on the moon. It's science fiction in the tradition of Olaf Stapledon, involving the sweep of history, instead of a story about specific individuals confronting some sort of crisis.

Is that supposed to be the "excuse" for making the individual scenes incredibly boring?

 

[Greg Cox]

All I can say is it can be a breathtaking film under the right circumstances. Your mileage may vary.

But, yeah, it's not something I slam into the DVD player when I feel like unwinding after a long day. It's more like attending a concert or opera or something. IMHO.

And Olaf Stapledon is probably "incredibly boring" compared to a Dean Koontz novel, but it depends on what you're in the mood for.

 

[timothy]

obi wan never told you what happened to you're father, did he. Luke I am you're father . vader rules baby.


I love star trek but empire is my all time favorite sequal next khan.


so for me it will be

star wars the empire strikesback
star trek the wrath of khan'
aliens
terminator 2
2010
predator 2 just sucks I am sorry the only good thing about that movie was we saw the inside of the predator ship.

 

[BlobVanDam]

It's not a story about people. It's about marvelling at vast expanses of time and space . . . .

I find that a puzzling defense, given that it has characters and a sembalance of a story involving them. If it's all about marvling at time and space, make a damn 2-hour VFX reel and leave it at that.

It was a 2 hour VFX reel. A pretentious, self indulgent 2 hours of still frames of spaceships floating slowly in space, and big spaceship sets rotating around, intent only on showing off that they knew space had no gravity or sound.
I watched it with no expectations of what it was supposed to be, and was greatly disappointed. Then I read up about what it was about thoroughly because everyone said there was some deep meaning to it, and watched it a second time at a later time. I was still thoroughly disappointed. I have never seen 2010, but I should have voted for it anyway. Because there are only 2 or 3 films I have ever enjoyed less than 2001 in my life.