2001: A Space Odyssey Sucks

[T.C.]

Before 2001, space movies had rarely attempted to be realistic...

I'm just curious -- What space movies since 2001 have attempted to be realistic? I can think of many movies that have used space as a dramatic and beautiful setting, but none that have attempted to be realistic. 2001 was not only groundbreaking in that respect, but remains uniquely honest in its portrayal of space.

Also, a thread about 2001 would be incomplete without a shout-out to Arthur C. Clarke, especially given his substantial contributions to rocket science. I grew up adoring his fiction. Everyone should read 2001, yes, but to this audience I would also suggest The Fountains of Paradise.

-TC

[IcarusBen]

I'm just curious -- What space movies since 2001 have attempted to be realistic? I can think of many movies that have used space as a dramatic and beautiful setting, but none that have attempted to be realistic. 2001 was not only groundbreaking in that respect, but remains uniquely honest in its portrayal of space.

Also, a thread about 2001 would be incomplete without a shout-out to Arthur C. Clarke, especially given his substantial contributions to rocket science. I grew up adoring his fiction. Everyone should read 2001, yes, but to this audience I would also suggest The Fountains of Paradise.

-TC

2010?

In all seriousness, though, Ender's game took a semi-realistic approach to space.

[Red Iron Crown]

Gravity attempted to treat spaceflight realistically, though it certainly wasn't perfect in that regard.

[Dispatcher]

What is this get in the airlock thing people talk about? I don't know that line. If it's a meme, I can't figure it out, and if it's from the movie, I believe Hal told Dave NOT to go into the airlock.

Its not a quote; some people who enjoy "2001" seem to want someone who doesn't appreciate the movie to step into the airlock (for the excitement maybe. :-) I don't recall HAL telling Dave not to go into the airlock, but if he did, it was due more to reduce a threat to himself rather than any concern for Dave.

[pebble_garden]

Actually I just watched 2010 again last night and I have to say...I rather liked it. Granted, it's a completely different beast than its predecessor.

The acting and dialog is actually really good, better than I remembered. The visual effects are just okay, but we have better tools for that today. The music, though, is dreadful.

I found it funny that they didn't even try to fake weightlessness in Leonov's and Discovery's nonrotating parts, except for HAL's brain room where there's no floor to stand on.

It's clear to me, on reflection, that 2001 and 2010 had to be written by a person born of a former global empire (Clarke, Britain). That whole "unassailable monolith" thing, acting as implacable parent and guardian, patiently bringing the Promethean flame of intelligence and civilization to savages (early hominids, life on Europa), is so very much the Victorian ideal.

Edited May 27, 2014 by pebble_garden

[IcarusBen]

Its not a quote; some people who enjoy "2001" seem to want someone who doesn't appreciate the movie to step into the airlock (for the excitement maybe. :-) I don't recall HAL telling Dave not to go into the airlock, but if he did, it was due more to reduce a threat to himself rather than any concern for Dave.

Actually, knowing HAL's backstory, it probably was out of concern for Dave. HAL isn't actually evil, he's fizzling out. And, in fact, the problem is HUMAN ERROR. They told HAL to lie, but he suffers from high-functioning Sheldonitis.

Yes, I like "The Big Bang Theory."

[razark]

I'm just curious -- What space movies since 2001 have attempted to be realistic?

Apollo 13?

[T.C.]

Apollo 13?

Yes, of course; I forgot about that one. I haven't seen Gravity, though, so I can't say whether or not it rises to meet the bar.

-TC

[Valley]

Its great. Makes you think about our place in the universe. Also, a lot of the tech was nice and realistic. Though, Moon Zero Two did steal a lot from it. Or did 2001 steal from MZT? I forgot. I put it right up there with Alphaville and Blade Runner when it comes to the sci-fi films that ask questions and make you think about the answers. Of course, many scenes were slow because they were slowing off some of the wonderful state-of-the-art special effects. And showing a story instead of just data dumping everything.

[TheSaint]

It's a Kubrick film. You either loved Kubrick or you hated him. Personally, I love his films, I think he was one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. But I also realize that he isn't for everyone.

I think that in the case of 2001 you also have to look at the film in context. It was the original special effects extravaganza. Nobody had ever made a film with that volume or quality of special effects. Audiences were agape. So, with that in mind, making the special effects sequences longer makes sense, since that was a large part of what the audiences were coming to see. Now we live in an era when the worst box office bombs have better special effects, so we're a little jaded.

As for the wooden acting, that was on purpose. Kubrick modeled the actors performances after the popular perception of astronauts at the time. They were perceived as calm, rational, logical, unemotional. So, of course, their performances came across as very flat and uneffusive. If the astronauts had been portrayed as emotional or displaying fear, it would have actually seemed less realistic to the audiences at that time.

[Brethern]

It's a Kubrick film. You either loved Kubrick or you hated him. Personally, I love his films, I think he was one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. But I also realize that he isn't for everyone.

I think that in the case of 2001 you also have to look at the film in context. It was the original special effects extravaganza. Nobody had ever made a film with that volume or quality of special effects. Audiences were agape. So, with that in mind, making the special effects sequences longer makes sense, since that was a large part of what the audiences were coming to see. Now we live in an era when the worst box office bombs have better special effects, so we're a little jaded.

As for the wooden acting, that was on purpose. Kubrick modeled the actors performances after the popular perception of astronauts at the time. They were perceived as calm, rational, logical, unemotional. So, of course, their performances came across as very flat and uneffusive. If the astronauts had been portrayed as emotional or displaying fear, it would have actually seemed less realistic to the audiences at that time.

Ironically enough they did the exact opposite in a bit of Apollo 13.

Anyone remember the "what were them gauges at" line? that was added to show tension.

[Dodgey]

Ironically enough they did the exact opposite in a bit of Apollo 13.

Anyone remember the "what were them gauges at" line? that was added to show tension.

That was one of the comments of the crew when they watched it. I think I remember hearing Rob Howard (director) say that was on purpose.

[Brethern]

That was one of the comments of the crew when they watched it. I think I remember hearing Rob Howard (director) say that was on purpose.

I know, they did it to show that yeah this is a serious situation, I'm wondering if they realized that people might not believe it if they portrayed it the same way Kubrick did in 2001.

[suha52]

It means that Kubrick made a movie that sucked and wasn't stand-alone. I'm sure Clarke sold a lot of books to people who hoped to be able to understand the suckage of the movie.

[IcarusBen]

Its great. Makes you think about our place in the universe. Also, a lot of the tech was nice and realistic. Though, Moon Zero Two did steal a lot from it. Or did 2001 steal from MZT? I forgot. I put it right up there with Alphaville and Blade Runner when it comes to the sci-fi films that ask questions and make you think about the answers. Of course, many scenes were slow because they were slowing off some of the wonderful state-of-the-art special effects. And showing a story instead of just data dumping everything.

Again, showing a story is better than telling one, I get it. The problem it is showing something, but it sure as heck isn't a story. I'd describe more as "a series of loosely connected unfortunate events they tried to pass off as a story but really should have been two films and have ditched the whole monkey sequence and all of act 4 because those events were pointless unless you read the book." But that's my opinion. I see I struck a nerve among the community when I said that this films sucks.

It's just that when I see a film, I want to it to have meaning, where I walk away knowing that something good happened. Here? I get 4 or 5 people dead, killed by a (now dead) rampant AI, and our good friend Dave becoming Space Baby. I have no idea what that all means. Should I be happy? Sad? Frightened? Judging by the way that the starchild looks, I'm gonna go with frightened, but it's not really clear.

[Red Iron Crown]

Again, showing a story is better than telling one, I get it. The problem it is showing something, but it sure as heck isn't a story. I'd describe more as "a series of loosely connected unfortunate events they tried to pass off as a story but really should have been two films and have ditched the whole monkey sequence and all of act 4 because those events were pointless unless you read the book." But that's my opinion. I see I struck a nerve among the community when I said that this films sucks.

It's just that when I see a film, I want to it to have meaning, where I walk away knowing that something good happened. Here? I get 4 or 5 people dead, killed by a (now dead) rampant AI, and our good friend Dave becoming Space Baby. I have no idea what that all means. Should I be happy? Sad? Frightened? Judging by the way that the starchild looks, I'm gonna go with frightened, but it's not really clear.

It's a work of art. It's not necessarily meant to tell a coherent story, it's meant to present you with carefully crafted images to make you feel a certain way, and it's left to you to interpret its somewhat ambiguous meaning.

Fair game if that's not your thing, it's not something everyone appreciates.

[IcarusBen]

It's a work of art. It's not necessarily meant to tell a coherent story, it's meant to present you with carefully crafted images to make you feel a certain way, and it's left to you to interpret its somewhat ambiguous meaning.

Fair game if that's not your thing, it's not something everyone appreciates.

Here's the thing; it doesn't make me feel anything. And somewhat ambiguous? Oh, sweetie, that film's looking ambiguous in the rear-view mirror.

[Red Iron Crown]

I hated it.

It made you feel something, though I suspect it wasn't what the artist intended. It's not to your taste, though many others enjoy it. No big deal.

[Vanamonde]

There's a hint to the nature of the movie in the title. It's an odyssey: a voyage, a journey. It's not so much leading to a big payoff as looking at some interesting things that happen along the way from point A to point B. Point A is when the monolith intervenes in human evolution and stimulates the apes to become people, and point B is when we reach the monolith and it stimulates Dave to become the Starchild, which is the next stage in human evolution.

[PPR]

The thing you have to remember about 2001 is that director Stanley Kubrick is an exceptionally patient director. Most directors feel the need to keep the pace quick so as not to lose the audience. Kubrick is more willing than to let the suspense and drama build over time. In the case of 2001, he went half an hour before the first word of dialogue. And there wasn't a word spoken in the last half hour. While this might seem an eternity for those with a short attention span, the story is building if you take the effort to notice. The pace is very efficient. No other film before Gravity even came close to realism of space travel depicted in 2001. I still have a hard time figuring out how they did some of the special effects in an age before computers were used in movies. You also have to marvel at how accurate the film was at predicting technology: the break up of the phone monopoly, video phones, a space shuttle, an international space station...heck, Kubrick could arguably have sued Apple for ripping off his ideas (if you look in the film, there's an Ipad, and SIRI is basically a knock-off of HAL minus the psychosis).

Remember, all this was done only seven years after the first man in space, a year before man had set foot on the moon, and two decades before before a space probe was sent to Jupiter.

I understand the story is rather nebulous and hard to follow at times. But the more effort and attention you put into following 2001, the more you will appreciate that it is a masterpiece. If you didn't get it the first time through, it might be worth your time to give it a second look. This is that kind of film.

I recently saw it on the big screen. Even more incredible.

[Brethern]

The thing you have to remember about 2001 is that director Stanley Kubrick is an exceptionally patient director. Most directors feel the need to keep the pace quick so as not to lose the audience. Kubrick is more willing than to let the suspense and drama build over time. In the case of 2001, he went half an hour before the first word of dialogue. And there wasn't a word spoken in the last half hour. While this might seem an eternity for those with a short attention span, the story is building if you take the effort to notice. The pace is very efficient. No other film before Gravity even came close to realism of space travel depicted in 2001. I still have a hard time figuring out how they did some of the special effects in an age before computers were used in movies. You also have to marvel at how accurate the film was at predicting technology: the break up of the phone monopoly, video phones, a space shuttle, an international space station...heck, Kubrick could arguably have sued Apple for ripping off his ideas (if you look in the film, there's an Ipad, and SIRI is basically a knock-off of HAL minus the psychosis).

Remember, all this was done only seven years after the first man in space, a year before man had set foot on the moon, and two decades before before a space probe was sent to Jupiter.

I understand the story is rather nebulous and hard to follow at times. But the more effort and attention you put into following 2001, the more you will appreciate that it is a masterpiece. If you didn't get it the first time through, it might be worth your time to give it a second look. This is that kind of film.

I recently saw it on the big screen. Even more incredible.

What about apollo 13? doesn't that count for realistic space travel?

[IcarusBen]

There's a hint to the nature of the movie in the title. It's an odyssey: a voyage, a journey. It's not so much leading to a big payoff as looking at some interesting things that happen along the way from point A to point B. Point A is when the monolith intervenes in human evolution and stimulates the apes to become people, and point B is when we reach the monolith and it stimulates Dave to become the Starchild, which is the next stage in human evolution.

Of course, a movie is about the road to get there, but this particular road has so many detours, potholes and traffic jams that I just want to turn around and go home.

[Vanamonde]

I'm sure Odysseus felt the same way.

[Camacha]

I must say I was a bit disappointed as well when I rewatched it recently. Even when keeping in mind that the movie is a lot older than it looks, that the style of the sets and pictured technology is really well done and that it is fairly accurate when it comes to physics and science, I felt that it was more of a fizz than a bang. I somehow feel that it could have been more, and I do not mean in the way of modern action packed sci-fi.

It's a work of art. It's not necessarily meant to tell a coherent story, it's meant to present you with carefully crafted images to make you feel a certain way, and it's left to you to interpret its somewhat ambiguous meaning.

Fair game if that's not your thing, it's not something everyone appreciates.

I am fairly familiar with different types of art (partly in a professional capacity) and agree with your initial statements, but I do not feel this movie has extraordinary qualities. Good? Yes. Amazing? Not too sure about that.

I think I was most amazed by the set design, those were really ahead of their time and have obviously had a large influence on movies to come. But that is of course quite a literal and obvious quality.

[lajoswinkler]

When you watch older movies, you need to watch them in the context of their time. The perfect example is Metropolis. It's a masterpiece by the standards back then. It's a childlish pile of crap by today's art standards.

I hate new flash and bang movies, with annoying characters and overexplaining things, with "everything must look cool", with LOUDNESS and frantic camera movements to conceal crappy CGI, but I do think that "2001" does partially suck.

Kubrick was an awesome director, but not even he could escape the need for dazzling people. Some of the technologies and movie magic seen in that movie were completely new, so he used them for the sake of using them. It was a bad move.

However, the movie is truly great, and you need to watch it seriously and almost meticulously. It's not something you watch with a bunch of friends over popcorn at your place.

Kubrick's movies share his established style of wide angles, silence and details, which really require careful observation, but they're not perfect.