But, man, just having watched it once, I know I would fall asleep 30 minutes into it if I watched it again.

TlalocW

My favorite movie as a kid growing up at that time! Gave me all kinds of visions of the future, and structured the kind of models I built, the books I read, music I listened to, etc.

This movie and Star Wars later had me pursue an earlier career in film and broadcasting.

Summary of 2001 plot here for those who want to remember it again... Spoiler alert! Watch movie first if you haven't!

It was in the book though. And it was used in the mediocre 1984 sequel (which was clearly not directed by Kubrick).

That's right. Krull with a young Liam Neeson.

How about this. Dark Star?

2001 was seminal in that it proved that "hard" sci-fi had a place in cinema, and that it could be worthwhile to actually budget the things. if that's your criteria for "most important" then I guess that works. Me, I figure that if it weren't Kubrick with 2001, it would have been another director with another film - it would have happened eventually, and it's just that we got 2001 instead of something else.

Depressing because the space station and moon base were supposed to happen by now but Nixon killed NASA as a "Kennedy thing". We should have just kept going. Instead, we're making sure the rich get richer and starting a war or two for fun and profit.

And although I had not seen the film for years I must say that it had no less impact for me when I first viewed it in downtown Detroit in Cinerama on its first release. It holds up like almost no others do. The reason is that Kubrick went the extra mile to visualize things in such a way that they would hold up. There were so many little details which placed you in the moment, in the action. The silence of space certainly is part of what added that loneliness aspect to the Jupiter mission (in the book it was Saturn). And yes, Douglas Rain was a great and sinister HAL 9000.

It is an astounding film, certainly Kubrick's finest, as well as the best SciFi film ever. I don't think it has been equalled.

R&K

I think I'll rent it again soon.

Last edited Fri Jun 12, 2015, 01:04 AM - Edit history (1)

that it holds up because of Kubrick. The only classic horror film that still holds up (for me) is the Shining- another Kubrick film. I still get shivers up my spine with the twins scene.

it was done before the advent of CGI.

Physical models, painstakingly constructed sets, and film editing.

Dullea got hurt in that scene, but finished it regardless, according to what I've read.

That it was done all with models and live action is astounding. The rotating cylinder in the Jupiter ship was really rotating, not for gravity, though. Remember, Poole's jogging scene?

Astounding. Simply astounding what Kubrick accomplished.

but I was flabbergasted by the set mechanism used for the jogging scene.

There's one split-second effects tell in the scene where the flight attendant gingerly snatches the floating pen that has escaped the sleeping Heywood Floyd's grip.

Its only a frame or so, so pay close attention the next time you watch. It helps to know that the pen was affixed to a rotating Lucite panel to give the appearance of floating, and happens the instant the attendant picks it from the "air."

Are you referring to the United Artists Theatre? Wow, what memories. Are you a D Child, longship?

When Cinerama came out in the 50's that is where it was hosted. Later, the Michigan theater did it. I think that's where I saw 2001. Of course, it was not filmed in Cinerama, but the theater still promoted it that way. This was nearly fifty years ago, so my memory is a bit uncertain.

The Music Hall is now the Music Hall for the Performing Arts. The Grand Circus Theater is now the Detroit Opera House. Michigan Theater is gone. I am uncertain about the UA theater, but I suspect it may be gone, too.

My regards.


The UA theater is still there, but sadly fallen into vandalism and disrepair.

you certainly know your Detroit theatre history. I thought the Cinerama was only in one place. I assume you're from The D; West Side or East Side?

Such a shame we can't save all our great theatres. Thank goodness Orchestra Hall was saved.

I believe the first person to perform at Orchestra Hall when they began renovation was Buffalo Bob Smith, of Howdy Doodie fame.

Just something I remember.

Because it's a frighteningly plausible cautionary tale.

Clarke's story is beautiful and Kubrick's movie is a masterwork. But I think SG is more important.

But hey, that's just my 2 cents, friends.

And remember, Tuesday is Soylent Green day.

2001 dealt with the subject of nuclear weapons proliferation (the thigh bone our anthropod ancestor throws into the sky "becomes " a nuclear weapon orbiting in space), and the violence that is imprinted in our DNA. It dealt with the what makes us human, what intelligence is, and the first contact between humans and an extraterrestrial intelligence.

I thought the nuclear destruction danger happened in 2010, when our beloved Monolith turned Jupiter into a new sun. The Murkan and Russian joint mission, endangered by the stupidity back on earth, etc.

2001 was a great ride, but I don't recall anything about nuclear destruction. The aforementioned thigh bone becomes a space craft, not a weapon.

Am I remembering this incorrectly?

Also memory related: do we have a Sci Fi forum on DU? I'll have to re-scan the lists.

Personally I think SG is more important because it deals with overpopulation/environmental degradation. Harry Harrison IMO is just as important a Sci Fi author as the great Clarke.

Again, a wonderful discussion to have.....thanks for it.

was the basis of the screenplay. Clarke co-wrote the screenplay for "2001" with Kubrick.

Clarke also wrote what is perhaps the greatest science fiction story of all time: "Childhood's End."

The two stories are related. Both attempt to connect the origins and history of human consciousness to the ultimate fate of humanity, which, in both cases, is powerfully influenced, if not determined, by aliens of higher consciousness and technical ability. Clarke is extremely good at basing the most fantastic science fiction premises in the ordinary realities of human life--for instance, the detailed presentation of the life of the astronauts on board Discovery One on their way to Jupiter to investigate the Monolith, even to their "boring" routines of physical exercise or eating pureed foods in plastic containers, and their quiet social interactions with each other and with computer HAL. This is very realistic imagery and behavior for a trip to Jupiter. I think it's rather funny that Clarke later criticized a long space flight routine sequence in "2001" that didn't make it into the final cut. That realism is one of the strengths of the movie. Clarke does something similar in "Childhood's End" with regard to the human routines of people whose lives are about to drastically change forever.

I think that the contrast in "2001" between the quiet flight routine and its sudden, life-threatening drama and mind-boggling conclusion is very effective. Someone upthread said he thought he would be bored if he viewed the film a second time. My experience of viewing it a second time was the opposite: The film seemed to move along faster than in my first viewing; I picked up numerous details that I hadn't caught the first time, and i found it even more enthralling on second viewing.

"Childhood's End" will likely never be made into a movie. I will not say why, for the sake of those who haven't read it. It has the most astonishing conclusion of any story I've ever read, and one that completely altered my view of human history, at one stroke. That one story. I'll just say this: religious fundies won't like it.

Clarke was a genius and a visionary, as well as a trained scientist (first class degree in math and physics from King's College London) and popularizer of science. He was a radar whiz during WW II and the first to suggest that satellites could be used for telecommunication. Most passionately he believed in human space exploration. Kubrick could not have had a better colleague for what has been called "one of the most influential films of all time."

Wonderful story. I disagree about it never being made into a movie. The religious knuckleheads (as opposed to intelligent religious people) can't stop the signal. Maybe I'm wrong...

Thanks for reminding me about Childhood's End. It's been decades since I read it.

I agree about 2001 being the very opposite of boring. It never gets old.

One of the cable channels is finishing filming on it as we speak. I believe Charles Dance is in the cast.

I remember the first time I saw it back in '72 i think. I Loved it but didn't realize how big it's scope and impact would eventually be. It is fitting that it was done prior to the moon landings. We still had dreams of space back then.

When this movie came out. That's also the year that I got to attend a lecture on Transcendental Meditation by the Maharishi. I remember that on the way back, my father was deftly philosophizing about TM and 2001 - at the same time, weaving his speculations and trains of thought from both together seamlessly. Yeah - that movie was anything you wanted it to be!

and then again at a midnight showing in 72. My friends suggested that we take LSD at the midnight showing and I reluctantly agreed. Five of my friends and myself took a tab of White Clinical acid an hour before the movie started, and boy oh boy, I peaked halfway through the movie and when the scene of his entering Jupiter in a pod and all the psychedelic colors flying by, I felt myself as if I was in it and physically falling into vortex of neon light.

That was only the second and last time I had done acid even though it was an exceptional trip.

I wish they would make Heinlein's book Stranger In A Strange Land into a movie.

One of the best science fiction books I've read is Contact by Carl Sagan. Fantastic book, even though the movie is 3 1/2 stars out of 5, it doesn't come anywhere close to the book.

Kubrick was one of the best-his use of color to create mood was amazing.