Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
QANTASforever
Topic Author
Posts: 5791
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

2001: A Space Odyssey

Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:47 pm

After finally getting around to watching this on DVD I gotta say - THE most over-rated movie I have ever seen.

It was fluro-technic crap and so SO SO boring.

What the hell is all the fuss about???? Some giant embryo floating around in space and the whole world goes wild.

WHy?

QFF
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:03 pm

I saw it the other day on TV (in Italian, admittedly, so my comprehension was a little fuzzy). What is the point of the giant black stone pillar and the monkeys ? And the embryo ? WTF ???

Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:43 pm

You´ve got to read the book by Arthur C.Clarke to understand the whole thing. Best thing is book and movie combined.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
cptkrell
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:50 pm

"Fluro-technic crap"; GOOD one, QQF! I've been looking for the correct term since I saw the movie when it was first relased (1968?) and you have hit on it.

I must admit, however, that I am still impressed with much of the industrial design and special effects relative to the spacecraft, machinery, etc. I believe that movie probably set a new standard for the genre.

Story and screenwriting leave me underwhelmed. Regards...Jack
all best; jack
 
Shamrock_747
Posts: 1499
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 3:25 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:34 am

I admit that when I first saw the film I didn't understand it, but a look at this website helped a lot. It's very intersting and explains the messages that Kubrick is putting across through things like the monolith, apes, HAL and the embryo.

http://www.kubrick2001.com
 
ushermittwoch
Posts: 2616
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:18 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mon Jun 14, 2004 1:01 am

Great soundtrack, AWFUL movie.
Where have all the tri-jets gone...
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5352
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mon Jun 14, 2004 2:38 am

The fuss is about the fact that Kubrick went to great technical lengths to make the movie, to shoot some of those scenes, and the fact that all this was done before man had ever set foot on the moon. Not only that, that it was a work by arguably the greatest American film director.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mon Jun 14, 2004 2:47 am

The quality of the movie is not in the (god forbid) special effects.
That explains why the "modern" youths won't appreciate it, since all they care about is loads and loads of computer graphics (preferably of explosions and mutilated bodies).

Yes, it's a good movie. The story and the deeper meaning behind it which you can no longer see, having been conditioned to superficiality in everything from an early age, are just lost on you apparently.
I wish I were flying
 
GDB
Posts: 13893
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:03 am

It is not an easy film, it was a landmark.
But, to a generation raised on the dumbed down, effects and little else, style of film, all I can say is that it's your loss.
I recommend reading the book, which is very accessible.
I first saw the film when I was about 12, and I think I got what Kubrick and Clarke were driving at.
If you really need everything signposted in films, everything explained in simple terms, everything neatly wrapped up, then that's sad.
Basically most of modern Hollywood treats you as idiots.
 
Guest

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:11 am

I read an Arthur C. Clarke interview in which he said that, upon entering either the US or Great Britain (can't remember which one though), he had the customs officer tell him " I won't give you your passport back until you explain me the ending of the film!"  Big thumbs up
 
cptkrell
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:43 am

Jwenting wrote, in part; "The quality is not in...special efects. That explains why "modern" youths won't appreciate it,..."

I have mixed emotions with that conjecture, seeing as how I was the commo guy programming old Honest John Rockets (with Nuke warheads, forbid!) out of Giessen, Germany when I first saw the movie in 1968 on a small O-club screen. I guess I don't think I'm a "modern" youth.

I still remain underwhelmed by (not only this particular movie) many of Arthur C.'s presentations. Even in my waining years, I continue to think he is quite overated. And, I still see more importance in the technical presentation of the story rather than the "odyssey" itself. Regards...Jack
all best; jack
 
ushermittwoch
Posts: 2616
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:18 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:53 am

Well, one of his achievements is that he made a film where the German version is actually better than the original version.
The movie? FULL METAL JACKET

Where have all the tri-jets gone...
 
QANTASforever
Topic Author
Posts: 5791
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:13 am

Jwenting:
Yes, it's a good movie. The story and the deeper meaning behind it which you can no longer see, having been conditioned to superficiality in everything from an early age, are just lost on you apparently.

That has got to be one of the most condascending inferences I've ever read.
What an arrogant statement. How can you establish the depth of appreciation a person has for films from a few words on a.net? huh? Just because some people don't like this film doesn't mean they have been programmed by film studios to enjoy superficiality. You have inferred that I am a superficial tool of modern film studios. And I resent that totally.

You have inferred too much, Jwenting.

QFF
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
GDB
Posts: 13893
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:22 am

In some ways, despite the real 2001 looking nothing like how it turned out, (but how many in the 60's thought it would be), it is very realistic, the lack of sound in space for example (only his breathing and radio communications would be audible to an astronaut on EVA).

Clarke is more than a sci fi author, his paper in 1945 on using an Earth satellite for communications as an example, he predicted that a rocket would hit the Moon in around 1950, but the first manned mission would take another 20 years, was 9 years out with the first, but almost spot on with the second.

For 2001, think of it as about evolution, Man's evolution, the premise that very advanced aliens in the distant past influenced it when we were still Apes, left behind devices to contact them when we were advanced enough to, then we would have the ability, if the humans making contact passed tests, to have our evolution accelerated to their level.

I'm not a believer in UFOs, but if we do ever make contact with presumably a much more advanced intelligence, it may well be like 2001, almost inexplicable for the humans involved.
2001 in this respect, is a lot more realistic than Star Trek!
 
Russophile
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:22 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:39 am

You want a good space movie?

Check out Солярис (Solaris) by Andrei Tarkovsky -- made in the USSR in 1972 and one of the top 3 sci-fi films out there.

It is rumoured that Tarkovsky was not a fan of 2001 -- it is said that he thought the movie is quite bland. I have to agree with him.

http://www.underview.com/2001/solaris.html



And please steer clear of the remake of this movie with George Clooney. It is absolute rubbish and cannot compare to the classic Tarkovsky version.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mon Jun 14, 2004 9:11 am

2001 wasn't a complicated film, just like most of Kubrick's films.

Take Dr Strangelove for example. There's not that many hidden metaphors in it, it's a pretty obvious movie. But perhaps the funniest thing about the movie was the realism. Bear in mind that fluoridation in the water was thought to be a communist conspiracy back in 1950.

The Shining? A simple horror movie. The actual 'shine' has precious little to do with the movie, and ultimately it's shockingly scary because you never can explain where the waiter comes from, why the kid can 'shine' and why he's in the photo at the end.

2001 is simpler still. The whole story is about evolution. Apes use tools, evolve to men and ultimately the tools turn on them. The embryo symbolises the evolution of man from an Earth-born air-breathing organism into a space-born organism.

In my opinion, Shakespeare and Kubrick have a lot in common - and I don't think that's an overstatement. Shakespearean plots, just like Kubrick plots, are remarkably simply once you've got through the quite timid metaphor. While Shakespeare produced beautiful language, Kubrick produced beautiful images.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3232
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:08 am

2001 is a great movie.

It is about knowlege and evolution. About technology and man's dependence on it.

The part about the monkeys is that technology is what sets man apart from other animals. The bone is the first tool.

Fast forward to 2001 and the computer HAL which is code for IBM, has total control over men's lives. (H is to I, A is to B, L is to M) The monolith could be many things, but one think it definatly is is an infinate knowlege. It sets man on his course.

2001 is a thinking man's scifi.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:35 am

Kubrick made a masterpiece of cinema every time he put something out there. Hell, he made Peter Sellers the smartest and sanest man on screen for a movie. 2001 was an incredible work, even if you don't figure it was made pre-moon landing. The special effects (stolen/appropriated by British sci/fi television over the next decade re: UFO and Space:1999) were groundbreaking, and the plot forced one to think. The movie is not the Chronicles of Riddick, and thank God. I like vaccuous brain pabulum, on occasion. I need thought provocation even more.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5352
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:19 pm

One of my favorite Kubrick film remains Barry Lyndon. Although plodding at times...the music, the costumes, the shots, the lighting, and the scenery are unparalleled. His earlier, film-noire type films "Killer's Kiss" and "The Killing" for instance, while not earning as much attention as his later films remain great films. If I had to rank the Kubrick films I've seen in order of greatest to least greatest to me they'd be

Dr. Strangelove
Barry Lyndon
Eyes Wide Shut
Spartacus
The Killing
Paths of Glory
A Clockwork Orange
Full Metal Jacket
The Shining
Lolita
2001
Killer's Kiss
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
Soren-a
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2001 10:13 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:26 pm

Hi

I generally agree with what QFF wrote in the first message. I was very disappointed when I saw this movie.

To all of you who say that you understand the movie: Please explain the meaning with the ending? What the heck does the dinnertable, bathroom, old man in bed and the big black stone have to with anything????? And how does he suddenly end up there?

Call me shallow and superficial if you like, but that film is a waste of time in my opinion.

Regards
Søren Augustesen
 
GDB
Posts: 13893
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:09 am

Maybe Kubrick wanted you to interpret it yourself?
Pretty clear to me, it's Bowman's encounter with some kind of very advanced intelligence, who knows how that would be, certainly not how normal Sci Fi tells it.
Read Clarke's book, '2001' pretty well pointed out in that short, accessible book.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:23 pm

One theme that continous through Arthur C. Clarke´s books is the encounter of humans with advanced intelligences (not just in the Space Odissey series, but also in the Rama series of books). In most cases these adavanced intelligences have shed their fragile biological bodies and transfered their conciousness into much more durable machines.
Also don´t forget that the author had a master´s degree in Physics (similar to Asimov, who was a biochemist).
the monoliths have several functions in the story. Essentialy they are machines left by a advanced intelligence, which contacted earth about a million years ago (this is the first one with the apes). The second one on the moon is simply a transmitter set to send a signal once humankind is advanced enough for space travel (humans would discover it on the moon and dig it out. Sunlight would trigger it to send a signal to Jupiter). Now humans would send and expedition to Jupiter to see what´s going on there. HAL´s weird behavious stems out of a conflict. The computer has to make sure that the expedition reaches Jupiter, but isn´t allowed to tell the astronauts the true objective. When the astronauts are thinking about aborting the mission due to technical problems, it decides to kill them to continue.
THe last monolith in the Jupiter orbit is a "wormhole" machine. When the astronaut approaches it with the space pod to investigate, he gets moved to another end of universe. The weird pictures are what the author imagines a travel close to speed of light to look like (don´t forget Clarke was a physicist).
Finaly the room: The advanced intelligence has based it´s knowledge about our civilisation exclusively on TV commercials and movies (everything we transmit on earth will eventualy reach outer space). So they knew what things look like, but they don´t know the content (the blue stuff in the boxes of food). In the end, the conciousness of the astronaut, all his experiences from the womb to this moment, get also transfered into the huge machine, he is discarding his body.

It is very well explained in the book.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
Arcano
Posts: 2301
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:34 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:37 pm

One of the best movies ever!

Not easy though, if you're favorite movie was Independence Day this is not the one. Indeed, it's a slow complicated movie.

But it's great, full of signs. The way Kubrick uses the music, the colors, did you note the importance of the space alignment in some points of the movie?
HAL9000 almighty, always there. The way the white is contrasted to the black of the emptiness, the white that changes to red in the programming room.

The mankind is still a monkey discovering tools, the monolith representing what it is beyond (black, tough, unknown, but still in perfect proportion and harmony). The astronaut dying into the journey, the evolution, the mankind not alone, but influenced by what's above.

OK, Pan Am flying to the space look naive, as the little girl, very 70s, but give the guy a credit. The ship in the space has great special effects. Every image is mighty.

2010? Yes, that one is crap!
2001? Work of art
in order: 721,146,732,763,722,343,733,320,772,319,752,321,88,83,744,332,100,738, 333, 318, 77W, 78, 773, 380, 73G, 788, 789, 346
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:47 pm

Moment, back in 1968, PanAm was still the most important airline in the world, pioneering new routes and technology (they just ordered the 747), so it makes sense to prtray them as running commercial space travel. And about the girl, thisis how they imagined future to look like.

It is still my favourite movie. (and I agree, the later continuations don´t even reach it by half)
I like science fiction with a stress on SCIENCE, taking today´s knowledge and expanding it, speculating on future deveplopments. Another one I like is Asimov´s I Robot stories and the "fantastic Voyage" into the body of a human.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
backfire
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:01 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:47 pm

Amen to that, GDB.

Seems to me like today's filmgoers don't like anything they have to think about. That's why films have been reduced to the level of pop videos.

Where the hell did the concept of telling a story go?

You can make a thoroughly captivating film without any special effects as long as you've a strong story behind it. That's what made Shawshank Redemption so bloody good.

Miss out the story, the plot, the script, and all the best special effects in the world won't save you from a shoddy picture (insert any Roland Emmerich film here). Underneath the trimmings, a turkey is still a turkey.
 
paulc
Posts: 1440
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 10:42 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:08 pm

The bone in 2001 was also used by the apes as a weapon, showing the potential for agression even then.

MD11Engineer - I thought the Rama series was superb, although it helps to read them in order.
English First, British Second, european Never!
 
GDB
Posts: 13893
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:04 am

In the book, Discovery goes to Saturn, using a gravity assist at Jupiter like the Voyagers did 15 years after the book was written.
You would not want to hang around at Jupiter because of the Radiation, in fact even speeding through on a gravity assit would be too dangerous, but the full extent of the radiation was not understood until the Pioneer 10 probe, a decade after the book.

The book implied that the rings of Saturn were formed from a shattered Moon by the Aliens a few million years ago as a beacon, the 'wormhole' monolith in the film at Jupiter, in the book was more logically on Saturn's moon Japeatus (SP?) which has one side a lot more reflective than the other. No doubt the Cassini probe will reveal more of this odd little moon.

Even so, the film did a good job of depicting Jupiter considering that it was done well before any space-probe went there, Saturn was used in the film but Jupiter was used as a substitute to make the film flow better, but the Saturn footage was used by the cinematographer for his own film 'Silent Running'
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:31 am

The Greatest Science-Fiction Movie I've seen up to now and it STILL holds up 36 years after its premiere. I was lucky enough to have seen it in a Cinerama (ultra-widescreen) theatre in NY back then and although initially perplexed by it, I went back after reading the novelization and was hooked for life. Nothing truly sci-fi I've seen (Star Wars ISN'T really sci-fi) quite compares to this, although Spielberg's original version of Close Encounters of the Third Kind comes close. The majesty and grandeur of Kubrick's epic achievement are timeless and this film will endure as a cultural landmark. As others say here, those that don't like it, DON'T get it! As GDB laments, the entertainment fluff that Hollywood serves up now warps the tastes of today's audience, making them unreceptive to true greatness such as this. It may NOT be the most entertaining piece of cinema but it makes you think and wonder. How many recent films even aspire to attempt to do that?
 
rockyracoon
Posts: 1067
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 3:58 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:03 am

One of my all time favorite films! To all that hate it, watch it one more time and PAY ATTENTION. I bet you'll change your opinion. I was confused the first time I watched it, but that only made me more intrigued. It's nice to watch a film that makes you think every once in awhile.  Smile



peace
Airports I've flown from: CVG PIT DAY JAX MWO PHL PHX ORD DCA IAD MIA TPA MCO FLL ATL DTW DFW SJC LAX DEN SLC LAS HNL LIH OGG YVR GYE MUC ICN NRT PVG SHA SZX MNL PPS CRK BKK DMK KBV EOH MDE CLO CTG SMR BOG ACD MEX CUN MID AUA SAL RTB
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:32 am

I will read the book, as recommended then. I read the first 3 Rama books in order, but they started to drag to I gave them up. And I will try to see the movie with the English soundtrack. Visually I admit the film is superb, but I get annoyed when I lose the plot, and this one lost me big time at the end. Happy to give it another go though.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
GDB
Posts: 13893
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Fri Jun 18, 2004 3:19 am

Of course most Sci-Fi films spacecraft/aircraft have flightdecks that were based on the technology of the day, all those dials and clockwork cockpits.
The space vehicles in 2001 had glass cockpits, got that right didn't they?
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Fri Jun 18, 2004 3:58 am

The only other space movie I watched whhere they got the physics right was the semi documentary Apollo 13.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
GDB
Posts: 13893
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:28 am

'Apollo 13' a great film, led to the 12 parter on HBO 'From The Earth To The Moon', a superb and balanced depiction of Apollo as a whole.

I would put '2001' as 'near term' Sci-Fi, that is, it's set in the near future and so isn't into stuff we barely understand and may well never be possible, like faster than light interstellar travel, meeting aliens a bit too human like for my liking, '2001' was a logical look at how space flight might develop in the near-ish future, as well as what a contact with another intelligence might be like.

Clarke seems to think that intelligence in finite, biological form, might not be capable of star travel, without drastic modification or evolution to a higher form.
Again, a lot more likely a premise than 'Star Trek' like stuff, which is basically a story of our times, our attitudes, transported to an imagined future.
Likely to be as accurate as Jules Verne's idea that you could get to the Moon by being fired from a giant gun.
Acceptable idea at the time it was written, but overtaken by a greater understanding of what would be involved as well as advances in science and technology.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:08 am

"Again, a lot more likely a premise than 'Star Trek' like stuff, which is basically a story of our times, our attitudes, transported to an imagined future."

Agreed, GDB! As huge a Star Trek fan as I am, I never bought it as anything more than an entertaining fantasy, hardly any more realistic than Star Wars, although it makes the pretense of being so. AS with so many other science-fiction efforts, much of the 'science' aspect is ignored. Best example, how to explain artificial gravity in a ship that doesn't spin to create centrifugal force! 2001 is one of the very few films to address this with the 'wheel' space station and the 'rolling barrel' module within Discovery's command section. And Star Trek's molecular 'Transporter' was originally more of a budget saving device than a futuristic concept, skirting the need for much costlier (in the original series) special effects of landing shuttlecraft. Though we thought it was cool, it ignored the prospect of matter contamination during the transport, something Trek explains is handled by a "pattern buffer". Quite frankly, I doubt any sane person would ever opt for this mode of travel, no matter how many guarantees of safety were in place. Dr. McCoy's reticence about using it was quite understandable; it's a big wonder nobody else on Enterprise was concerned. I think the scenario shown in both versions of "The Fly" was more likely ("Help me, Help me!"  Big grin ). UNLIKE Star Trek but LIKE 2001, "Apollo 13" is also a good and realistic depiction of space travel, my only quibble being with the use of sound effects in exterior scenes of the Apollo craft in space. I guess Ron Howard just felt he had to take some dramatic license there, likely thinking a dead quiet scene of thrusters firing would be too dull.
 
swissgabe
Posts: 5148
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 4:57 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Fri Jun 18, 2004 7:46 pm

I didn't like it as well but at that time it must have been a COOL movie ...
Smooth as silk - Royal Orchid Service /// Suid-Afrikaanse Lugdiens - Springbok
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:05 pm

HAL which is code for IBM
How could I have missed that?!

(Star Wars ISN'T really sci-fi)
Star Wars is space opera, not hard science fiction.

The space vehicles in 2001 had glass cockpits, got that right didn't they?
Yeah, although I read in the Cinema FX magazine that it was awfully hard to make them look right on film, since they were animated (drawn).


There's only one thing that Kubrick really got wrong at all, and partly it was artistic license based upon what the audience would expect. Simply put, the engines were unnecessarily large. I read a very good article about the how realistic certain spacecraft were in an issue of Air & Space years and years ago. They reviewed the Millenium Falcon (saucer shape good, all the holes in the hull for equipment bad), the original Enterprise (if any exhaust came out of the back of the engines, and remember, there were holes in them, the ship would've started doing somersaults), and finally, the Discovery from 2001. Basically, the small workpods were thought to be very realistic, but the engines on the Discovery were unnecessarily large. The ship was assembled in earth orbit, so it didn't have to launch from the ground. But the audience probably would've thought that the ship looked wrong without them, so...




Interestingly enough, the soundtrack was basically put together by Kubrick himself. He didn't like the score that the composer wrote, and he went with his own supposedly temporary tracks. That's how you get The Blue Danube to represent the lightness of zero gravity, Also Sprach Zarathustra to become incredibly famous (and make Strauss, who at the time was a nobody, famous), and the cool zoo music at the end with all the howls, chirps, gutteral sounds, etc (I forget the name of the piece).
 
GDB
Posts: 13893
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Discovery

Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:01 am

For Discovery spacecraft propulsion, Kubrik and Clarke wanted to use a system like the 'Project Orion' studies from 1958-63, that is lot of small nuclear bombs shot out the rear, exploded, a huge metal plate protecting the ship from the blast with a huge plate with shock absorbers.
Had Orion happened, manned exploration of Mars and even the outer planets and moons might have happened way before the 20th Century had ended.
However, Kubrik was mindful that he'd just made 'Dr Strangelove', no wanted to avoid having nuclear weapons in '2001', in case he got labeled as being obsessed by nukes.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:31 am

I think he got influenced by the first experiments with ion thrusters.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
GDB
Posts: 13893
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:41 am

A BBC documentary about Project Orion, featured Clarke mentioning Orion in the context of '2001', with a drawing done by the 2001 production people of a 'Discovery' spacecraft with Orion propulsion, basically the familiar habitation sphere we know from the film was recognizable.

Here are some links about Orion;
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/probirth.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/orion.htm

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~sherrin/orion/design.html
 
backfire
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:01 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:05 pm

HAL which is code for IBM

Not what I heard. I understand that Arthur C Clarke was astonished when the "IBM" issue was pointed out to him, and that he said it was completely coincidental.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Backfire

Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:06 pm

Backfire: Not what I heard. I understand that Arthur C Clarke was astonished when the "IBM" issue was pointed out to him, and that he said it was completely coincidental.

That´s the answer the producer´s legal department certainly loved to hear!  Wink/being sarcastic
 
GDB
Posts: 13893
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Sun Jun 20, 2004 3:17 am

IBM should worry, they got PR in the film, the glass cockpit CRT's in the Orion spacecraft had IBM logos under the screens.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

GDB

Sun Jun 20, 2004 3:36 am

Oh, didn´t remember that!  Big thumbs up
 
FlyVirgin744
Posts: 1282
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 1999 8:35 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Sun Jun 20, 2004 4:38 am

Lets here it HAL!!!

DAAAAAISY, Daaaisy......

I'll have to admit, the first time it wasn't so great, but then watching it again a few months later made the difference.

Woodly Allen didn't like it the first time, saw it a few years later then realized how far ahead of him Kubrick was.

Sometimes I go about in pity for myself and all the while a great wind carries me across the sky.
 
ushermittwoch
Posts: 2616
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:18 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Sun Jun 20, 2004 6:21 am

Isn't everybody ahead of that pathetic, whining child molestor?
Where have all the tri-jets gone...
 
dl757md
Posts: 1483
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:32 am

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Sun Jun 20, 2004 7:53 am

Ushermittwoch

We may not agree about Lance Armstrong but I'm right there with you on Woody.

Dl757md
757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
 
GDB
Posts: 13893
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Sun Jun 20, 2004 7:59 am

There is one mistake in the film, the short sequence in the conference on the Moonbase, they get up from chairs and walk around a bit faster than advisable for the 1/6th gravity on the Moon.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FGITD, LNCS0930, luckyone and 39 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos