50 years 2001: A Space Odyssey

Michel Van

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
13 August 2007
Messages
7,134
Reaction score
6,473
On 2 april, 1968 premier Stanley Kubrick masterpiece

4 years earlier he decided to make The "Perfect" Movie and he succeeded
50 years later 2001: A Space Odyssey has nothing lost of its Magic, its mysteries
Its Space Hardware still looks realistic, even timeless

Allot of Sci-Fi Movies made after 2001 were caught up by reality
Not for 2001: A Space Odyssey, its seems timeless

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHjIqQBsPjk



If you want more how Kubrick made this Masterpiece
look the seven Part Series by Cinema Tyler on You Tube (highly recommended)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgNyCluIRhA&list=PLGciYgiR4atGcBOIuOmLQBXUj692TV6R0
More on Stanley Kubrick way to work, here (highly recommended)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45dcNbKztMM&list=PLGciYgiR4atFDGlCa-peL7gzx7jZU4LIT
 
Always loved that space station docking sequence. I actually thought Forbidden Planet was more entertaining with equal production values.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHXfMjp2zqI
 
The school team I played on back then, went to London for a weekend tournament, but of all things it snowed the whole time. To keep us entertained, the team coach took us to see Space Odyssey. Left a lasting impression on me --
 
To Celebrate 50th Anniversary of "2001: A Space Odyssey"

There will be several events world wide

The Deutsches Filminstitut in Frankfurt am Main, start large exposition on 2001 in collaboration Cristane Kubrick
With many original piece from movie and from June 70mm screening of Movie.
From 21. March until 23. September.
http://2001.deutsches-filmmuseum.de

In May, The Cannes Film Festival With collaboration Christopher Nolan and Cristane Kubrick
Will start with "2001: A Space Odyssey" “unrestored” 70mm new print from Original Negatives.

This version will be show world wide in selected IMAX and Cinemas with 70 mm projectors.
http://www.in70mm.com/library/rumour/index.htm

in Autumn bring Warner bros. This version on Blu-ray
 
One always hopes that the ~ 15 minutes of footage Kubrick edited out between the Cinerama premiere and the general release might find its way back into the film. Unfortunately Kubrick insisted that it not be restored and Christine Kubrick has indicated she has no intent of going against his wishes.

Off topic but I wonder, not knowing jack squat about film technology, how difficult it would be to convert the original Cinerama print to 4K digital cinema (or even 5K RED).
 
George Allegrezza said:
One always hopes that the ~ 15 minutes of footage Kubrick edited out between the Cinerama premiere and the general release might find its way back into the film. Unfortunately Kubrick insisted that it not be restored and Christine Kubrick has indicated she has no intent of going against his wishes.

Off topic but I wonder, not knowing jack squat about film technology, how difficult it would be to convert the original Cinerama print to 4K digital cinema (or even 5K RED).
Click to expand...

Actually, its 17 minutes and they are stored together with Negative of "2001: A Space Odyssey"
I hope those fragments end up on coming Blu Ray release in Autumn

What are those 17 minutes ?

-More Spacecrafts in orbit (is unclear if model not made into film or are cut by Kubrick in final cut )
-Floyd order a Bushbaby at Macy's, over Video phone after call with daughter.
-Aries 1B pilot (Ed Bishop) conversation with Floyd, (you see him for brief moment as Floyd is eating on board.)
-The Moon Plaza in Clavius Base werde children are painting (according some books this scene imply Clavius Base is a colony)
-Additional scene on Discovery
Bowman play a electric organ in centrifuge
Bowman use science instruments on discovery
more Ground communication with Discovery about HAL 9000 Issue and upcoming EVA of Poole
alternative take on some scenes
like the EVA or chess scene was original with game Pentominoes
-the Hotel Suite had several additional scene (but Kubrick cut it down for faster transition to the end )
 
CBS News: Smithsonian 2001: A Space Odyssey Exhibit

https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAvxW0g?m=en-us
 
fredymac said:
Always loved that space station docking sequence. I actually thought Forbidden Planet was more entertaining with equal production values.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHXfMjp2zqI
Click to expand...

It might have had comparative relative production costs, but to me it looked fare less believable/realistic and far more dorky/cliche. Perhaps it was more entertaining to some watchers, but the point of 2001 was to be thought provoking.

Martin
 
Is there any truth to the claims that Clarke apparently fled the cinema after he had first seen 2001 because of the way Kubrik had rearranged the story from the characters relating straight to camera the events which had occurred to them?
 
Kadija_Man said:
Is there any truth to the claims that Clarke apparently fled the cinema after he had first seen 2001 because of the way Kubrik had rearranged the story from the characters relating straight to camera the events which had occurred to them?
Click to expand...

NOPE that is a Urban Legend
Fact is Clark saw the Workprint version of 2001 and final cut on Premier.
 
martinbayer said:
It might have had comparative relative production costs, but to me it looked fare less believable/realistic and far more dorky/cliche. Perhaps it was more entertaining to some watchers, but the point of 2001 was to be thought provoking.

Martin
Click to expand...

Personal taste affects perceptions so to each his own. For 1956 (the year Forbidden Planet was released), this film was quite thought provoking as well. The idea of humans arriving in flying saucers turned the UFO craze of that time upside down. The theme of the story is the classic question of how humans handle god-like technology.

For the time, the special effects were in a class by themselves but definitely lacking compared to today's CGI. Of course, 2001 suffers the same problem in that regard. I liked both but for shear popcorn eating enjoyment, Forbidden Planet provides more "escape from reality". And then there is Anne Francis in her prime.
 
Unrestored 70mm print to be shown at Cannes, introduced by Christopher Nolan. Limited worldwide exhibition to follow.

http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/infos-communiques/communique/articles/cannes-classics-to-celebrate-the-50th-anniversary-of-2001-a-space-odyssey
 
martinbayer said:
fredymac said:
Always loved that space station docking sequence. I actually thought Forbidden Planet was more entertaining with equal production values.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHXfMjp2zqI
Click to expand...
You seriously compared that abominable schlockfest to 2001??? Just looking at the movie posters already shows how cheesy and badly dated FP was right out of the gate.
Click to expand...
I enjoyed both films. Forbidden Planet was based on the Shakespeare play The Tempest.

I would not call FP an “abominable schlockfest” as it was made in a different time period and different circumstances.

Let’s just say both films were made for our entertainment.
 
fredymac said:
martinbayer said:
It might have had comparative relative production costs, but to me it looked fare less believable/realistic and far more dorky/cliche. Perhaps it was more entertaining to some watchers, but the point of 2001 was to be thought provoking.

Martin
Click to expand...

Personal taste affects perceptions so to each his own. For 1956 (the year Forbidden Planet was released), this film was quite thought provoking as well. The idea of humans arriving in flying saucers turned the UFO craze of that time upside down. The theme of the story is the classic question of how humans handle god-like technology.

For the time, the special effects were in a class by themselves but definitely lacking compared to today's CGI. Of course, 2001 suffers the same problem in that regard. I liked both but for shear popcorn eating enjoyment, Forbidden Planet provides more "escape from reality". And then there is Anne Francis in her prime.
Click to expand...
First time I saw Forbidden Planet was an HD release. Blew my mind. For the time the effects were awesome.
 
2001 still holds its own, 55 years after its making and 22 years after its purported date. FP was truly *only* made for popcorn entertainment, whereas 2001 was also meant to be thought provoking. Poor old dead Shakespeare had no way to fight back against being invocated with respect to FP, otherwise I'm utterly convinced he would have objected to this trashy drivel. People traveling through space in a frigging flying saucer only to land on a planet with agreeable gravity and a breathable atmosphere (and wearing dorky baseball caps, no less!) to hash out some utterly irrelevant personal issues in a completely forgettable script - how lazy can screenwriters get? And yes, I have watched the movie - another 98 minutes of my life that to my great regret I'll never recover. In my view, 2001 was MGM's redemption for foisting FP on humanity...
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
2001 still holds its own, 55 years after its making and 22 years after its purported date. FB was truly *only* made for popcorn entertainment, whereas 2001 was also meant to be thought provoking. Poor old dead Shakespeare had no way to fight back against being invocated with respect to FB, otherwise I'm utterly convinced he would have objected to this trashy drivel. People traveling through space in a frigging flying saucer only to land on a planet with agreeable gravity and a breathable atmosphere (but bearing dorky baseball caps, no less!) to hash out some utterly irrelevant personal issues in a completely forgettable script - how lazy can screenwriters get? (Never mind, that was an absolutely rhetorical question.) And yes, I have watched the movie - another 98 minutes I'll never recover. In my view, 2001 was MGM's redemption for foisting FB on humanity...
Click to expand...
Yes, thank you for voicing your opinion loud and clear.
 
martinbayer said:
2001 still holds its own, 55 years after its making and 22 years after its purported date. FB was truly *only* made for popcorn entertainment, whereas 2001 was also meant to be thought provoking. Poor old dead Shakespeare had no way to fight back against being invocated with respect to FB, otherwise I'm utterly convinced he would have objected to this trashy drivel. People traveling through space in a frigging flying saucer only to land on a planet with agreeable gravity and a breathable atmosphere (but bearing dorky baseball caps, no less!) to hash out some utterly irrelevant personal issues in a completely forgettable script - how lazy can screenwriters get? (Never mind, that was an absolutely rhetorical question.) And yes, I have watched the movie - another 98 minutes I'll never recover. In my view, 2001 was MGM's redemption for foisting FB on humanity...
Click to expand...

WS264407__47952.1651588003.jpg
 
Orionblamblam said:
martinbayer said:
2001 still holds its own, 55 years after its making and 22 years after its purported date. FB was truly *only* made for popcorn entertainment, whereas 2001 was also meant to be thought provoking. Poor old dead Shakespeare had no way to fight back against being invocated with respect to FB, otherwise I'm utterly convinced he would have objected to this trashy drivel. People traveling through space in a frigging flying saucer only to land on a planet with agreeable gravity and a breathable atmosphere (but bearing dorky baseball caps, no less!) to hash out some utterly irrelevant personal issues in a completely forgettable script - how lazy can screenwriters get? (Never mind, that was an absolutely rhetorical question.) And yes, I have watched the movie - another 98 minutes I'll never recover. In my view, 2001 was MGM's redemption for foisting FB on humanity...
Click to expand...

WS264407__47952.1651588003.jpg
Click to expand...
I think before the mods jump in, we end this that we agree to disagree.
 
2001 is one of the movies I have watched several times, and I expect to watch it again. And again. I managed one sitting of Forbidden Planet, and I am not inclined to repeat the experience. YMMV.
 
Orionblamblam said:
martinbayer said:
2001 still holds its own, 55 years after its making and 22 years after its purported date. FB was truly *only* made for popcorn entertainment, whereas 2001 was also meant to be thought provoking. Poor old dead Shakespeare had no way to fight back against being invocated with respect to FB, otherwise I'm utterly convinced he would have objected to this trashy drivel. People traveling through space in a frigging flying saucer only to land on a planet with agreeable gravity and a breathable atmosphere (but bearing dorky baseball caps, no less!) to hash out some utterly irrelevant personal issues in a completely forgettable script - how lazy can screenwriters get? (Never mind, that was an absolutely rhetorical question.) And yes, I have watched the movie - another 98 minutes I'll never recover. In my view, 2001 was MGM's redemption for foisting FB on humanity...
Click to expand...

WS264407__47952.1651588003.jpg
Click to expand...
Classy as always.
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
2001 is one of the movies I have watched several times, and I expect to watch it again. And again. I managed one sitting of Forbidden Planet, and I am not inclined to repeat the experience. YMMV.
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly concur.
 
The K2 said:
Orionblamblam said:
martinbayer said:
2001 still holds its own, 55 years after its making and 22 years after its purported date. FB was truly *only* made for popcorn entertainment, whereas 2001 was also meant to be thought provoking. Poor old dead Shakespeare had no way to fight back against being invocated with respect to FB, otherwise I'm utterly convinced he would have objected to this trashy drivel. People traveling through space in a frigging flying saucer only to land on a planet with agreeable gravity and a breathable atmosphere (but bearing dorky baseball caps, no less!) to hash out some utterly irrelevant personal issues in a completely forgettable script - how lazy can screenwriters get? (Never mind, that was an absolutely rhetorical question.) And yes, I have watched the movie - another 98 minutes I'll never recover. In my view, 2001 was MGM's redemption for foisting FB on humanity...
Click to expand...

WS264407__47952.1651588003.jpg
Click to expand...
I think before the mods jump in, we end this that we agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
I couldn't disagree more ;)!
 
The K2 said:
martinbayer said:
2001 still holds its own, 55 years after its making and 22 years after its purported date. FB was truly *only* made for popcorn entertainment, whereas 2001 was also meant to be thought provoking. Poor old dead Shakespeare had no way to fight back against being invocated with respect to FB, otherwise I'm utterly convinced he would have objected to this trashy drivel. People traveling through space in a frigging flying saucer only to land on a planet with agreeable gravity and a breathable atmosphere (but bearing dorky baseball caps, no less!) to hash out some utterly irrelevant personal issues in a completely forgettable script - how lazy can screenwriters get? (Never mind, that was an absolutely rhetorical question.) And yes, I have watched the movie - another 98 minutes I'll never recover. In my view, 2001 was MGM's redemption for foisting FB on humanity...
Click to expand...
Yes, thank you for voicing your opinion loud and clear.
Click to expand...
You're welcome :).
 
Arjen said:
YMMV.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Is FP a bit cheesy? I suppose so. But it remains a foundational classic of science fiction cinema, along with "Woman In The Moon," "Metropolis" and "Destination Moon." Without FP, there would have been no "Star Trek." FP was basically an early pilot for Star Trek.
1) Captain of the starship is a confident guy who bags the babe
2) He's backed up by a doctor and a first officer who provide both emotion and logic
3) They're up against nearly god-tier ancient aliens, and *think* their way out of it
4) Their ship is about 1/3 of the "Enterprise" (the saucer section)
5) The DC-stations and associated effects are essentially transporters
6) They show a mono-cultural crew successfully working under a military-style hierarchical structure
7) The babe in question doesn't exactly wear a whole lot, yet skirts the decency rules of the time

If Forbidden Planet is too goofy to be considered worthy of merit, then *nothing* prior to "2001" was. Science fiction worth watching began in 1968 in that world view. And that's just not so. Even the nominal sequel to FP, "The Invisible Boy," a movie clearly aimed at a younger audience and with much less effort devoted to it, still managed to presage "Colossus" and "The Terminator."
 
It's about time someone demystified Kubrick's great work. The truth is that they ran out of money to finish the film and were forced to improvise a rather absurd ending with many hallucinogenic effects. The spectator is left without understanding anything. Perhaps that increased the sales of the book, but I believe we would all have preferred to see a less cryptic contact with extraterrestrial intelligences.
 
Forbidden Planet and 2001: a Space Odyssey are classics in own way
FP is classical 1950s Sci-fi Story,
2001 is timeless Sci-fi spectacle that bring more questions then answers, the Viewers have to answer them self.

both push level of special effects and possibility.
FP manage with budget of today $21 million is incredible
While 2001 budget of today $85 million push boundary of film making,
hell even 55 years later the 2001 analog effect still stand BETTER, as today CGI garbage (yeah i mean you Disney)

While Kubrick went over the top with construction of Real size centrifuge of the discovery or 12 meter long model.
Others try to manage to make good Sci-Fi movies with less
This Island Earth with today $8 million tell classical 1950s Sci-fi Story
Silent Running was made with $10 million and disused aircraft carrier
Alien was planned as B movie, saved by Ridley Scott, who filmed it like A-Movie with same budget...
 
I was mesmerized by 'the rather absurd ending'. Over several years, I went for a second and third viewing, because of the way the movie drew me into its narrative. I'm not going to bore you with the way I finally made sense of it all. The people I discussed it with came with similar, if slightly divergent explanations. They all made sense to me. I have watched a 2001 bluray edition a few times since then, it still fascinates me.

I found the big robot Forbidden Planet's most off-putting element. Eventually, I could see past Frank Drebbin to see Commander Adams. I did enjoy FB, but not enough to watch it a second time.

You may have deduced by now I saw 2001 first, then The Naked Gun, then Forbidden Planet. This probably coloured my perception of FB.
 
Ultimately, what I liked best about Kubrick - not only a master of stories, he was an absolute wizard with light and dark.
 
Arjen said:
Ultimately, what I liked best about Kubrick - not only a master of stories, he was an absolute wizard with light and dark.
Click to expand...
oh yes, each of his movies are unique !

And he went into extremes to make them,
He used Black and White Film in most of his Movies to use Light and Dark effective
What was perfect for Dr Strangelove a very black comedy about Nuclear War and Sex...
Then to go Full bright Color in 2001 (nope Spartacus is not true Kubrick film, he just replace the director late in production.)
or went very low budget for Clockwork Orange for Warner after 2001.
in Barry Lyndon scenes were shot entirely in candlelight !
He help in illumination of giant tanker set of The Spy who love Me
To go in The Shining into the extrem, building a hotel that make no logical sense, change set pieces in each shot,
Drove Shelly Duvall into nervous breakdown, only to make a horror movie that terrified the audience by feeling of insecurity.
 
Last edited:
Kubrick also had a supreme sense and preference for visual symmetry - being a symmetry aficionado myself, I surmise he was a fellow OCD beneficiary. Another particular thing that stood out to me is that there are two scenes in two vastly different Kubrick films in quite literally both time and space (and yes, I *do* consider Spartacus ultimately to be a Kubrick film) where in Spartacus two gladiator protagonists are having a conversation, being seated on opposite sides of the screen in a cubbyhole in the Colosseum before their fateful fight, where one of the characters is about to die, and the other one survives. That very same visual and dramatic arrangement is repeated in 2001, where Bowman and Poole have an ominous discussion about HAL in one of Discovery's EVA Pods, being lip read by HAL and resulting in Poole's murder by HAL. I would not be the least bit surprised if the survivors in both scenes sat on the same side of the screen, or if there were any number of other self referential memes throughout Kubrick's oeuvre, but that's the only one I became aware of.
 
Last edited:
I certainly wish that Kubrick had made his version of AI instead waisting his talent on the vile Eyes Wide Shut. While watching Spielberg's AI, I kept imagining how much better Kubrick's version would have been.
 
When I saw 2001, I convinced myself that I would understand the ending. I was wrong. Forbidden Planet, for its time, was amazing. I mean amazing on a number of levels. Robbie the robot and scenes that fit together seamlessly, as if it was all real. The flying saucer spaceship. A radical design that fit the movie. Movies of whatever time period, can be reflective of the culture. Lately, not so much.
 
edwest4 said:
When I saw 2001, I convinced myself that I would understand the ending. I was wrong. Forbidden Planet, for its time, was amazing. I mean amazing on a number of levels. Robbie the robot and scenes that fit together seamlessly, as if it was all real. The flying saucer spaceship. A radical design that fit the movie. Movies of whatever time period, can be reflective of the culture. Lately, not so much.
Click to expand...
The difference is that "Forbidden Planet" is based on "The Tempest" by William Shakespeare and "2001" on a novel by C. Clarke with an overdose of LSD.
 
Arjen said:
Ultimately, what I liked best about Kubrick - not only a master of stories, he was an absolute wizard with light and dark.
Click to expand...

Kubrick has directed almost every genre of film imaginable — from Sci-Fi to black comedy to historical epic to horror to thriller. In fact I don’t think he ever repeated a genre.
 
Justo Miranda said:
edwest4 said:
When I saw 2001, I convinced myself that I would understand the ending. I was wrong. Forbidden Planet, for its time, was amazing. I mean amazing on a number of levels. Robbie the robot and scenes that fit together seamlessly, as if it was all real. The flying saucer spaceship. A radical design that fit the movie. Movies of whatever time period, can be reflective of the culture. Lately, not so much.
Click to expand...
The difference is that "Forbidden Planet" is based on "The Tempest" by William Shakespeare and "2001" on a novel by C. Clarke with an overdose of LSD.
Click to expand...

The novel actually explains everything in a very meticulous, detailed manner which is to be expected since Clarke is a hard sci-fi writer. A lot of the people I know who loathes the film really liked the book.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom