• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

2001: A Space Odyssey

The source material was "The Sentinel" short story by Arthur C Clarke. I haven't read it so can't comment. But that was just a starting point for the movie script. The novel by ACC was based on the movie not the other way around.
Clarke was writing the book while the movie was being made. If you really want to get things mixed up, read Clarke's The Lost Worlds of 2001 where he talks about writing the book and the movie being made. It also includes deleted and original chapters of 2001 that where changed.
 
There are a lot of brilliant things about that movie... the surprisingly accurate space scenes (no sound), the surprisingly compelling villain, the psychedelia of the monolith sequence, and the mind bending "how old will Dave be next" at the end.
 
Wow Nightowl, that was quite comprehensive. I'd certainly like to see the missing footage sometime, but whether I'd go back on my previous statement that there need not be a special edition of this film is another matter.
 
Wow Nightowl, that was quite comprehensive. I'd certainly like to see the missing footage sometime, but whether I'd go back on my previous statement that there need not be a special edition of this film is another matter.
I myself would love to see that cut. I understand the desire to respect Kubrick's wishes, but still. I was disappointed with the 50th anniversary Blu-Ray release on the grounds that there weren't any new special features (the film is crying out for a making of documentary ala Empire of Dreams or the many literary making of books about the film), though I believe it had been remastered again, so I didn't buy it. Ideally there would potentially be as many as 6 cuts or rather permutations of the films - each with a commentary track - the theatrical cut & the extended cut with three different versions of each based on the sound. One with the classical music soundtrack, one with the narration and one with the score originally composed especially for the film by Alex North. I suppose there could be 8 if you include the narration with North's score on both cuts. And then there would be a feature-length making of documentary plus all the existing special features. I'd buy it. On the subject of redoing the VFX, they're fine a they are apart from the paintings of earth which are washed out and lack detail, apparently because at the time there weren't any suitable reference photos of Earth to use. Though by the time of the film's release Gemini's 10 & 11 had flown to suitable altitudes. i wouldn't object to someone using the techniques for painting planets used in 2001 and the 1977 cut of Star Wars to redo them.
 
There's also the tonal shift once we're inside the space plane, and the element of humor, pretty much for the first time in the film.

Definitely. I'd attribute that mainly to viewer identification. Unlike the first act, and despite all the high-tech space vehicles, these are relatable people, basically just like the audience.

According to the analysis here, which I quite like, the pen is symbolically significant in a different way...it represents man losing control of his tools.

So I guess that raises the question, what is the significance (if any) of the woman getting it under control and bestowing it upon the man?
 
Sometimes a stewardess handing you your pen is just a stewardess handing you your pen.
I was wondering when someone would bring up the proverbial cigar! ;)

I agree completely, though it's fun (for me, anyway) to speculate. Like, to wonder whether the stewardess putting the pen back in Floyd's pocket foreshadows the Star Child transformation as the reversal of loss.

Interesting tidbit: Floyd uses a pen floating in space in 2010, to demonstrate the escape plan, and flicks it spiraling away.
 
And he does this on the bridge of the Leonov - which has artificial gravity. :lol:
Not according to the view out the window, but 2010 was notorious about it's sloppy treatment of gravity (replacing the velcro floors of the Discovery Pod Bay with linoleum, and having people slouching against the walls during the "What's HAL's problem, anyway?" scene). While nobody played it like they were using grip-shoes in the pen scene, they probably were supposed to be.
 
2001 is to 2010 as chess is to tic-tac-toe.;)
I prefer 2001, no question.

Hyams was in an impossible position, to make a sequel to one of the greatest films of all time that had been made by one of cinema's greatest auteurs and filmmakers period, also of all time. With that in mind, I think there's much in 2010 to be respected and enjoyed, the reprisals of Dullea and Rain among them, but also Scheider, Mirren, Lithow, and Balaban, the whole cast from start to finish, actually. The story has great moments. Anyway, one of the two films had the be the lesser, so.... ;)

It wasn't my intention to hijack this thread into a discussion of the sequel, but I thought it was interesting to observe than the pen motif was repeated. :)
 
Not according to the view out the window

Hmm. I guess I assumed that the Leonov's control room was inside the rotating section. My bad.

While nobody played it like they were using grip-shoes in the pen scene, they probably were supposed to be.

If you look closely, both Soviet and American crew ARE wearing grip shoes. They're bright orange.

You can see these shoes in the sequence where Curnow and Max are preparing to spacewalk (several of the Leonov crew are walking up and down the bulkheads) and also in the conference scene in the Discovery pod bay.

2001 is to 2010 as chess is to tic-tac-toe.;)

I wasn't aware that one had to choose between the two... :confused:

I mean, 2001 is my favorite movie of all time, no question, but I also enjoy 2010 very much and IMHO, Peter Hyams did a fantastic job. Especially since Stanley Kubrick had all 2001 sets destroyed after filming wrapped - Hyams did the best he could, trying to rebuild everything basically from scratch (damn shame he didn't get to do the centrifuge - I would have LOVED to see what 2010 could have done with it).

And I might point out that even though Kubrick himself had no intention of making a sequel, he gave Hyams his blessing and encouraged him to make whatever kind of movie he wanted. So it's not like Hyams was shitting on Kubrick's memory or anything like that.
 
Last edited:
I really enjoyed seeing 2010 when it came out; I had seen 2001 on video but not yet in a theater. When Bowman appeared in the Discovery and was talking to Floyd, and it cut away and when it cut back it was the star child floating there, I wasn't prepared: A buzz went off in my brain for a split second and I felt chilled all over; probably the single creepiest feeling I've ever had at a movie. I haven't revisited it much, though.

It was also around that time that one of my senators, Jake Garn (who looked like a real life Montgomery Burns) pulled some strings with NASA to get a ride on the space shuttle. Some clever wit made a knock off of the 2010 poster with Jake's bald head like the star child and the tagline: "1985: The Year He Used Contacts."
 
On my most recent viewing of this film it occurred to me how the monoliths resemble the internet-phones AKA pocket-computers that have become ubiquitous over the last decade.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top