Movie News

The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day thinks this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

Published at: Sept. 6, 2010, 5:20 p.m. CST by quint

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with today’s Behind the Scenes pic! No, that headline doesn’t mean the column’s ending… it’s just the only quote I could think of that would make any sort of sense from 2001 and still fit within the character limits of the headline space. Today we have another photo featuring the great Stanley Kubrick, this time at an angle. The circular set built for 2001 is still one of the most amazing working sets I’ve ever seen on film. The jogging scene where Frank Poole runs the whole circle in one shot? Christ almighty! Trippy, hypnotic, suspenseful, beautiful, sad, poetic… all this and much more describes this great movie. And it’s also years ahead of its time. Rewatch it, notice the little touches that didn’t exist then that is commonplace now, like the TV screens in the back of air travel seats (space travel in the movie, but still). While it isn’t my personal favorite Kubrick film, 2001 is probably the best overall showcase of his talents. Here’s the pic! Enjoy!

If you have a pic you think should be included email me. I’m looking for the iconic, the rare or the just plain cool behind the scenes shots to feature here. Tomorrow’s Behind the Scenes better not cuss at me! That cussing cuss! -Quint quint@aintitcool.com Follow Me On Twitter



Previous Behind the Scenes pics: - Alien
- Big Trouble In Little China
- Clash of the Titans
- Dr. Strangelove
- Sesame Street
- The Birds
- The Dark Knight
- Batman (1989)
- Batman: The TV Series
- Stephen King’s IT
- Raiders of the Lost Ark
- Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
- Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
- Superman
- The French Connection
- Tron
- The Road Warrior
- Ghostbusters
- King Kong (’33)
- The Empire Strikes Back (Luke with Slate)
- Rebel Without A Cause
- Taxi Driver
- Metropolis
- The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
- Tommy Chong Meets The Blues Brothers
- The Empire Strikes Back (Filming the Crawl)
- John Carpenter’s The Thing
- Jaws
- Die Hard
- Aliens
- Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man
- The Howling
- Revenge of the Creature
- The Empire Strikes Back (Vader & Luke Duel)
- The Godfather
- Rambo III
- Vertigo
- Planet of the Apes
- Pan’s Labyrinth
- Labyrinth
- RoboCop
- The Adventures of Robin Hood
- Marathon Man
- Young Frankenstein
- Viva Las Vegas
- The Empire Strikes Back (Han driving a snow cat)
- Rio Bravo
- Giant
- Back to the Future
- The Time Machine
- War of the Worlds (1953)
- Alien (Chestburster)
- On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
- Dr. No
- The Twilight Zone
- Once Upon A Time In The West
- Lawrence of Arabia
- Star Trek: The Original Series
- The Empire Strikes Back (Luke in Wampa Cave)
- Edward Scissorhands
- The Warriors


Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:01 p.m. CST

    I've never seen 2001

    by CHRISTIAN_BALE_TRASHED_MY_LIGHTS

    I'm not proud to admit that.<p>But it's true.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:03 p.m. CST

    I met the Master Carpenter

    by HEADGEEK

    that built that wheel set for Kubrick. Apparently it was balanced to perfection. Some of the sheerest movie magic ever captured on film. No CG, pure magic.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Awesome.

    by FrecklesBauer

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:06 p.m. CST

    I'm afraid I can't let you do that Dave

    by cool_britannia79

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Open the POD bay doors HAL

    by cool_britannia79

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:07 p.m. CST

    I've seen 2001 and wasn't thrilled with it

    by Carolinamaestro

    I'm not proud to admit that. But it's true.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:07 p.m. CST

    Daisy, Daisy, giiive meee yoouur aaaaanswer...

    by cool_britannia79

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:07 p.m. CST

    2001 in 70mm at the Egyptian!

    by SgtSharki

    The Egyptian theater in West Hollywood is having a Kubrick retrospective and will be showing 2001 in a 70mm print! If you've never seen 2001 on the big screen you have never really seen it.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:08 p.m. CST

    I always skip the monkey part.

    by RPLocke

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:08 p.m. CST

    Wrong astronaut, Quint

    by MJPollard

    Frank Poole was the one jogging around the centrifuge, not Dave Bowman. We saw Dave enter the centrifuge in the next scene, after Frank had finished jogging and was sitting down to dinner.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:09 p.m. CST

    EVERYONE should see 2001

    by cool_britannia79

    it is fucking essential viewing! Then go and watch Doves live and marvel at Spaceface with the 2001 montage vid in the background on 60ft screens. Oh yes.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:09 p.m. CST

    Great great picture Quint!

    by NeverTalksBack

    Always loved this set, just looks so cool. 2001 A Space Odyssey is still one of my favorite films of all time. <p> <p> Thanks again Quint for this series of pictures, always provokes more interesting conversations on AICN, you know, more so than the reviews anyway.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:09 p.m. CST

    I've never thought of how they did that scene.

    by Yelsaeb

    The dude jogging in the circle. I saw the scene and I never thought of how they did it.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:10 p.m. CST

    Incredible film

    by HansBubi

    Not for everybody - same with Malick's films - yet this one really connects with a good number of film geeks.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:10 p.m. CST

    OVER- RA-TED! *clap clap clapclapclap*

    by Galactic

    Everybody!

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:10 p.m. CST

    A decisive movie in my filmwatching life

    by Kammich

    Starting when I was about 14(twenty-two now), my local video store was outsourcing their robust VHS library, selling most of them for about $4 and renting the rest out for 50 cents. For entire summers and most free time inbetween, I sat in front of my VCR getting well versed in the great films of our time. At first, I literally just went up and down the Horror aisle and rented every movie alphabetically. Such were the filmic cravings of a 14 year old. But in time I started listening to the suggestions of my father and other film fans, and started checking out the back catalogs of the most renowned directors. And if I can name any one specific movie that really turned me from that 14 year old who loved slasher movies into that 15-22 year old who devours film, it was "2001." I sat down, watched that movie, and the only thing I could muster to say was "holy... shit." And to this day, I still use the movie as a barometer for judging certain people. I've met so many people who say they "just don't get it"... "its really fucking boring"... "what the hell happens at the end?" I discard these people entirely, shortly after slapping them across the face with a white glove.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:10 p.m. CST

    Re: 2001 in 70mm at the Egyptian!

    by TheNorthlander

    I'm tempted to travel from Sweden to see that. If I only had the dough.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:11 p.m. CST

    "The jogging scene where Dave runs the whole circle in one shot?

    by CARTMANEZ

    actually i think that was Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood aka Gary Mitchell)<p>

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:11 p.m. CST

    The only watchable Kubrick movie

    by RPLocke

    and most interesting.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Harry: "I just got a call from 2001's master carpenter".

    by unfunnydude

    I'm so jealous you met that master carpenter. Soooo jealous.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:12 p.m. CST

    oh, also

    by Kammich

    ...the first movie I watched when high on pot. and to this day, I've always preferred to dive head-first into deep sci-fi while stoned rather than the frat comedies and action movies that most of my stoner friends prefer. *shrug* kudos to Kubrick for that, I guess

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Burtons Planet of the Apes had some nice 2001 homages

    by CARTMANEZ

    i thought so anyway(i know that film is despised by just above everyone)<p> the pods, "Lt Bowman report to the bridge", interior of the space station wasn’t unlike Discovery -plus the original Apes was out in 68 - the same year as Kubricks 2001..the Apes remake was out in 2001

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:14 p.m. CST

    This pic is longer than TOMMY LEE'S wang

    by Tigger Tales

    but has less BARBED WIRE stains

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:15 p.m. CST

    I like the monkey scene

    by PinkFloyd7

    it's the overlong space-docking scene that can use some editing. After about 75 minutes in, though, it becomes the height of awesomeness.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:17 p.m. CST

    PinkFloyd7

    by RPLocke

    The flying through the space lava lamp scene could have been edited down a little bit.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:17 p.m. CST

    A 70mm print played in London in July

    by palimpsest

    Blooming awesome.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:18 p.m. CST

    And 2010 ain't too terrible

    by palimpsest

    Some dated Cold War politics, but it's as good a sequel as you could hope for. Well worth a re-watch if you haven't seen it for years.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:22 p.m. CST

    Yeah Kudos Quint

    by cool_britannia79

    these daily pics are prety much the only good thing on AICN these days...

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:22 p.m. CST

    its crazy to think Star Trek TMP went 'all 2001'

    by CARTMANEZ

    when Star Wars was out just 2 years earlier and the success of that prompted Paramount to switch the 2nd tv series or low budget tv movie to the big movie.<p> plus one of the inspirations for Star Wars was obviously star trek with its action packed romp style...youd think theyd have wanted the Trek movie to jump straight back into that feel.....yet Star Trek TMP shunned that in favour of lofty 2001 stuff...<p>

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:24 p.m. CST

    2010 is hugely underrated

    by Planty_McPlant_Plants_His_Plant_At_AICN

    All things considered, its a fantastic sequel. It just couldn't live up to the original (aka the greatest sci-fi movie ever made).

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:24 p.m. CST

    Dave Vs. Frank

    by Quint

    You guys are right. I'd like to blame jet-lag and that I just woke up from an 8 hour "nap" after some 11 hours of flying to merry ol' London, but in my memory it was Dave doin' the jog. Guess it's time for a rewatch!

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:26 p.m. CST

    re Star Trek TMP/2001 again

    by CARTMANEZ

    its almost like Roddenberry saw 2001 in 1968 or 1969 when his TV series was constantly under threat and thought to himself 'man thats what star trek should be like..if i ever get the budget to do a star trek movie i will make it more like that'<p> 10 years later...

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Why the hell is McWeeny's avatar still on the front page?

    by A G

    Scroll all the way down. Why is Moriarty there?

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:34 p.m. CST

    Quint

    by CARTMANEZ

    yeah its true - Bowman is chowing down some paste or drawing pictures of the sleeping crew or playing chess with Hal as Frank works out and suntans etc<p> Basically the keepfit jock (Poole) is more interested in his body and getting a tan and watching videos of his buddies or whatever he does and Bowman is more introverted, exercising his mind and creativity - the dude who can eventually outsmart Hal

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:37 p.m. CST

    Greatest Sci Fi ever made??? That's debatable

    by cgih8r

    Now before you label me a hater I just want to say I really like Kubrick's movies and respect his style. It's just not for me so much because one thing that annoys me about his films Shining, and 2001 is he leaves sooooo fucking much up to the viewer. He leaves so much open for interpretation. It's good to make people think but when you say I'm not going to define what this is, you go figure it out yourself, I'm left in limbo. Again I'm not calling that an error on his part, that's clearly what he sought out to do. It just bugs the fuck out of me when I just spent the last couple hours patiently taking this slow journey waiting for some answers and then not getting any. I want to know what the fuck that star child was, I want to know what that dining room in space was, I want to know what happened to those dudes who took the photo in front of the monolith. In the Shining I want to know Jack's connection to the hotel, why is he in the black and white photo at the end of the movie? Is he the reincarnation of a past life where he was the over-seer of the hotel? Aaah, like I said I respect his style of making you interpret but it's not for me.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:38 p.m. CST

    I bet he's saying

    by Mr. Lahey

    "That was perfect! We'll do it again."

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:53 p.m. CST

    What's with all the hate with CGI?

    by Fletch Gannon

    Some CGI that has been done is good, alot is bad but either way you either buy into the concept of the movie or not. There are plenty of movies made prior to the advent of CGI with visual effects that are horrible but if you like the movie the effects don't really change this. Effects are icing on the cake, nothing more. Great characters and stories is all I want. I would rather watch a bad effects movie with a great story then a bad story with great effects.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:54 p.m. CST

    HELL yea.

    by Traumnovelle

    I consider myself a expert on all things Kubrick, and I've never seen that picture. Fuck yes. Thank you!

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:56 p.m. CST

    2010 was like The Phantom Menace

    by CARTMANEZ

    not cos it was crap (it wasnt) i mean it was such a looooooong wait for the sequel - 16 years just like Star Wars Episode I (not that i was waiting)....mustve been the longest gap for a sequel up until then <p> i remember seeing 2010 at the cinema and wow it was frickin something - the SFX were THE best id ever seen up until then, i couldnt believe they had the EXACT same sets as 2001 and with the same Hal voice and even had Keir Dullea back again (looking exactly the same! what the actor didnt frickin age in 16 years?!), Chief Broady and Lithgow were awesome and was the computer nerd guy <p> i remember at that young age feeling freaked out by all the freaky Sci Fi stuff that was going on - the green comet, 'Max you bastard answer me!...MAAAAAX!' the multiple monoliths infiltrating Jupiter, the explosion and the twin suns...it all felt so real and important like it was really going down - unlike star wars<p> btw did anyone realise Helen Mirren played the annoying Soviet captain? i didnt (until recently)

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:58 p.m. CST

    2001-great look and style but boring as balls.

    by alienindisguise

    for kubrick to be a notorious slave driver and perfectionist, some of the flick just seems lazy like he took a few days off

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 5:58 p.m. CST

    Sgt. Sharki..

    by Traumnovelle

    I've seen 2001 three times now in 70mm Cinerama at the Cinerama theater in Seattle, Washington. AND two of those viewings were in 2001. I've always been a little sour nobody had the idea to do a wide thearical re-release of 2001: A Space Odyssey IN the year 2001. It just made sense to. <P> Anyway, yes, it (along with Lawrence of Arabia) both are essential 70mm viewing. If the opportunity ever arises, even if you HAVE seen them before in 70mm, always leap at the chance. Travel great distances if need be.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:06 p.m. CST

    RPLocke

    by MotherPussBucket

    How about Dr Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket or The Shining? You don't even grant any of them 'watchable' status? I fully agree with you that '2001' is the most interesting all Kubrick's movies, but I find myself re-watching it less often than some of his others.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:06 p.m. CST

    re Helen Mirren

    by Planty_McPlant_Plants_His_Plant_At_AICN

    Agreed Cartmanez. I had NO idea it was her, maybe it was her shorter dyed hair, she looked completely unrecognizable. My theory is actors who appeared in 2001 and 2010 age slower than everyone else. Keir Dullea looked six years older, not sixteen, and Mirren is still hot as fuck!

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:07 p.m. CST

    ALL OF THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS

    by cool_britannia79

    EXCEPT EUROPA. MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO LAND THERE

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:08 p.m. CST

    Awesome

    by Scalvador

    I love Kubrick - by far the greatest visionary in cinema history. Whilst Barry Lyndon is my personal fave, I think 2001 was his most ground-breaking picture. Also, I sent this pic in to Quint! Not sure if it was my link he used - he probably had hundreds of people send this pic, but awesome all the same. Oh, and Quint, use the pic from Aliens I sent in...it was given to me by a sculpter who worked in the art dept - four dudes wearing Alien heads.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Someone should remake 2001

    by RPLocke

    I'm serious! I'd love to see a version which combines 2001 and 2010.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:09 p.m. CST

    2001 mustve been as big a spectacle as Star Wars or Jurassic Par

    by CARTMANEZ

    maybe even more so - face it even today the SFX and space scenes are incredible ..let alone in 1968. (and with its no sound in space stuff - still the most realistic). up until then you just had Star Trek, Forbidden Planet and the rest of the 50s Sci Fi movies (mainly alien invasion ones)..and Planet of the Apes' Barberella space FX at the start...for people going into see 2001 for the first time it mustve almost been like going into space for real<p> Star Wars took 2001s FX further by adding space battles and Jurassic Parks dinos were like seeing the real deal for the first time (i guess) - so i imagine its that kind of shock and impact 2001 had at the time (not that 2001 did any kind of Box Office like those i dont think)<p>

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:09 p.m. CST

    2001 is not boring

    by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave

    It's deliberately and hypnotically paced by design; Kubrick was an expert at matching form and content. 2001 is not for the ADD crowd. Go and watch Trannyformers or JJTrek if you want crash, bang, boom.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:11 p.m. CST

    Actually 2001 bombed when it first came out

    by RPLocke

    They say on the DVD, the only people keeping it alive were the college kids.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:16 p.m. CST

    didnt Hanks want to make 3001?

    by CARTMANEZ

    im sure he was trying to make that at one point (Poole is found and revived in 3001)..and i guess no one liked 2063 enough to try and make that into a film..<p> as for a remake of 2001 - id be disappointed that a classic is being remade but would no doubt go see it - only it couldnt be 2001 could it - itd have to be 2051 or something<p>

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:18 p.m. CST

    best movie in existence

    by IKilledSuperman

    I bought my Blu-Ray player just for 2001. Best cinematography, unbeaten until now and forever.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:20 p.m. CST

    watching the first space shots of 2001

    by BEYONDTHUNDERDOME2GIRLS1CUPBILLCOSBY

    you can just feel what lucas, cameron, scott and the beard were thinking back in '69.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:22 p.m. CST

    And Star Trek TMP...

    by IKilledSuperman

    ...best of all ST movies! One big silly homage (rip-of?!) to 2001, but still loved it. Only worth a DVD, though.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:24 p.m. CST

    fucking awesome shot

    by MackAndJacks

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:25 p.m. CST

    Metahuman_slayer

    by RPLocke

    It was great the first Trek movie had really first class visuals, but you have to wonder WHY they chose to make the story so boring? Trek always was an action story.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:25 p.m. CST

    Hello Dave.

    by The Dark Shite

    There's your title right there.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:31 p.m. CST

    still waiting for the 2061 movie

    by spidercoz

    my personal favorite of the books

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:32 p.m. CST

    RPLocke

    by IKilledSuperman

    I personally liked the story and wasn´t bored at all, pulled me really in even as a kid who had loved Star Wars just before (and hated 2001, LOL). In a weird way Star Trek:TMP opened my eyes for 2001.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:36 p.m. CST

    And tomorrow

    by IKilledSuperman

    I´ll go and buy the 2061 book, yep. Have been wanting to read it for years. Thanx for reminding me, AICN ;-)

  • 4 characters shorter too!

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:36 p.m. CST

    See you

    by ObiBen

    next wednesday!

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:37 p.m. CST

    THE MAGIC SWORD! Where is Gary Lockwood NOW?

    by RedEaglez

    Besides 2001, he starred in a number of TV series and B grade flicks.....my favorite "THE MAGIC SWORD"......now THAT was a movie deserving to be remade.....ogres, dragons, pinheaded freaks, and the magic sword with a suit of indestructible armor (several years ahead of Iron Man). George Lucas ripped off the final scene for Episode IV with newly restored R2D2 and C3PO. Tackily made, but a great story.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:37 p.m. CST

    Crap, didn't fit the subject line.

    by Clavius

    The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day thinks you should take a stress pill and think things over.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:38 p.m. CST

    2001 In My Top Ten For Life

    by Autodidact

    Fuck all the idiots who call it boring. I find it mind-blowing and also one of the most plausible movies ever made. It would not surprise me in the least if unknowably advanced alien species with mastery over time and space (or at least, space) have been tracking our evolution.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:39 p.m. CST

    best film ever

    by Jared

    FACT!

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:44 p.m. CST

    The only way to see it.

    by Shoegeezer

    I saw it a few months back at The Royal Festival Hall, they had a special digital version that had the music removed and the Philharmonia orchestra and choir doing the music (around 100 musicians on stage). It was probably the most amazing cinema event I have ever been to, like many others there I was regularly moved to tears. Christine Kubrick came to introduce it. It was such an expensive undertaking that they really have to do it again, they said as much there but offered no dates. It was amazing, also as the sound wasn't balanced as such you could hear a lot of sound effects that were never apparent in the "proper" mix. I've seen the film on 35mm, 70mm, digital, VHS, tv, BD and Hd-DVD. This was the best, by far. It was not a gimmick, just a beautiful new way to experience the film.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Tenenbaum

    by IKilledSuperman

    Excellent kubrickian minimalism there, brother!

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Michael Bays 2001

    by CARTMANEZ

    after defeating Hal 9000 (Dwayne Johnson) in a 15 minute laser blast fight, Bowman (played by Josh Duhamel) sets out the ship and opens fire, ejects and then crashes his spacepod into the monolith and watches it 'splode as he floats about and then opens fire (laser gun in each hand) on the giant evil space baby thats suddenly appeared over earth

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:46 p.m. CST

    What is so amazing about 2001 is how Kubrick

    by tritium

    got almost ALL of the science absolutely right. His vision was so ahead of it's time. Even the little things, like the perfectly flat-screen monitors/displays. The use of rotating sections of space habitat to provide artificial gravity.<p>I mean, this was before we really even understood the serious cardiovascular and musculature detioration that occurs in zero-G. The understanding of the negative physiological issues of Zero-G only came later, during extended, long duration space flights (e.g. SkyLab, Soyuz).<p>Another amazing touch (it's these little things that blow my mind) is the "glass" cockpits used in all the space vehicles. No fuckin' gauges, or electro-mechanical dials. I mean, check out the scenes where you see the pilot's cockpit on the Pan Am shuttle and the lunar shuttle. They are all flat panel graphical displays. HOW THE HELL DID KUBRICK think of this, 25-30 years before real glass cockpits came to pass!!!?? Also, check out the docking and landing "computer" graphics that appear on the displays during these parts. This was before we even had wire-frame/vector graphics. These were hand-animated simulations, that were projected onto screen from behind. Nevertheless...they are completely realistic, and uncanny in showing us the shape of things to come.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:54 p.m. CST

    Michael Bays 2001

    by IKilledSuperman

    Bowman retrieves his co-astronaut and lover Dr. Frankline Pool (played by Megan Fox) from a chaotic asteroid field after she had been floating in space with just enough air-supply to survive for 2 days. Good thing Bowman has a laser-rifle to take care of the ultra-fast phaser-drones HAL sends after them into the asteroid field!! After the exhausting high speed battle they make it back to the Odissey, turn off HAL and make weightless love to loud rock-music!

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 6:55 p.m. CST

    2010 is actually really good

    by gooseud

    its one of the most highly underrated films in my memory. Its actually fantastic, and the scene where Bowman appears to Roy Schieder is absolutely chilling. I have no idea why that movie doesnt get more love, and it holds up excellently today. As far as 2001, I find it an easier movie to respect then love, but then I find that about alot of Kubrick cinema. I will say, the HAL "death" scene is amongst the most emotional scenes I can ever remember seeing, feeling such sympathy for a being that was supposed to be the "villian" of the movie, even from Bowman himself. Watching it now having seen 2010 and knowing WHY HAL was doing what he was doing makes it almost unwatchably sad.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:02 p.m. CST

    this is boring ? youre fuckin boring !!!!!!!!!!

    by STEVEN_SPIELBERGS_TALKING_ANUS

    fuck anybody who thinks this movie is boring + also the mongoloid who dosent like kubrick movies because he wants everything explained to him like a 5 year old. If you pay attention 2001 pretty much does explain whats going on its just mostly being told visually instead of " well bob the aliens left us this here monolith and now we must evolve enough in order to fly into outer space and achieve our true potential in the universe " if you dont think thats a great idea for a movie just stick to your micheal bay crap. anyone who thinks this is boring needs a kick in the balls. and its not even my favorite kubrick movie !!!

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:14 p.m. CST

    RPLocke

    by kwisatzhaderach

    You're such a fucking moron. Don't ever procreate.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:17 p.m. CST

    BEST ONE YET

    by CurlySue

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:18 p.m. CST

    I STILL DON'T GET 2001

    by BringingSexyBack

    But that doesn't affect my appreciation of the movie. Space Baby? WTF is tht.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:21 p.m. CST

    (500) DAYS OF HAL

    by BringingSexyBack

    HAL: "So ... you're married." <P> Summer (outside, on space walk): "Yeah. Crazy, huh?" <P> HAL: *Locks doors*

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:25 p.m. CST

    kwisatzhaderach

    by RPLocke

    DO you ever contribute to any conversation here ever?

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:25 p.m. CST

    i've never seen 2001 either

    by Bouncy X

    and i never will. can't say i am proud or not since its just a movie but i just have no interest. you shouldnt watch a movie because "everyone" says you should, you watch it because you're interested or at least intrigued.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:26 p.m. CST

    WE REALLY HAVE ACHIEVED OUR TRUE POTENTIAL IN THE UNIVERSE

    by BringingSexyBack

    Just look at my Android phone. Doesn't get much better'n that.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:27 p.m. CST

    BOUNCY - I'M OF THE SAME MINDSET

    by BringingSexyBack

    But you would be remiss if you didn't see this. Do you really want to be remiss?

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:29 p.m. CST

    kwisatzhaderach

    by scrote

    ...bit harsh doncha think? It is a fact after all...

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Bouncy Remiss X

    by Bouncy X

    has a nice ring to it. :P

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:30 p.m. CST

    TRUE, 2001 DOESN'T HAVE TITTIES

    by BringingSexyBack

    Well, in the usual sense in which we regard titties. If you're into primate titties you're in for a treat.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:30 p.m. CST

    2010 is dated but 2001 is not

    by Bot-Bot

    2010 had the scientists typing on 1980s Apple IIE and Commodore keyboards, instantly dating the movie. The computers in 2001 still look completely original and futuristic. I still like both films, but 2010 sure has a lot of mid-80s tech, and Helen Mirren with bad hair.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:33 p.m. CST

    PCs and related tech are the 80s movie achilles heel

    by Bouncy X

    no matter how awesome many of these movies tend to be, the second you see them using tech like that it just takes you out and causes a giggle. especially if the movie or least the scenes in a movie are meant to be the future. especially a future beyond our time. thats also true of the internet as its portrayed in movies. there was a time when The Net was realistic and advance, today what she has is probably what the typical 13yr old has and they are 100 times a better hacker than she could dream of being. speaking of hacking...Hackers is reeeally dated too despite how recent-ish it is.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:41 p.m. CST

    This site fucking sucks now

    by Guy Who Got A Headache And Accidentally Saves The World

    Everyone trashes Kubrick and jerks off over the box office take of that one pixar cartoon Avatar

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:41 p.m. CST

    BringingSexyBack

    by IKilledSuperman

    The Spacebaby is Bowmans reborn conscience.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:43 p.m. CST

    Utamoh

    by tritium

    I totally agree about how dated 2010 is. I don't know if you happened to read my previous post in which I pointed out how far ahead of it's time Kubrick's 2001 was (is).<p> 2010 was definitely a step back. I almost lost my lunch when Roy Scheider's character goes into an operation's room on Earth, and all the displays are HUMONGOUS Sony CRT based televisions. 2010 had really, really poor art direction and little to no imagination as far as future trends and technology. It was almost as if the developer's didn't even watch the original 2001 movie.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:43 p.m. CST

    Everything you need to know about 2001...

    by Monroville

    just check out this website: http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20analysis%20new.html <p> or check out the video!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P95NWAHWLrc

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:49 p.m. CST

    A little 2001 trivia

    by Planty_McPlant_Plants_His_Plant_At_AICN

    Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke were working on alien designs. They were actually going to show what the mysterious aliens looked like. In the end, they decided not to show them. BUT I'm sure the alien design work is locked away at the Kubrick estate, and I'd love to take a gander. Knowing Kubrick, the designs are probably the most realistic aliens ever conceived.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:51 p.m. CST

    2010..

    by IKilledSuperman

    ..was sadly made without even a fragment of the care that went into 2001.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:52 p.m. CST

    Without 2001...

    by scrote

    ...there'd be no DARK STAR

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:53 p.m. CST

    scrote

    by RPLocke

    WHAT!

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 7:56 p.m. CST

    I mean, Frank and Dave had freakin IPAD's !!

    by tritium

    I shit you not. Check out these stills from when they were sitting down eating a meal on the Discovery:<p> http://tiny.cc/rdkw6

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:04 p.m. CST

    Phenomenology...

    by scrote

    No one else here have any love for Dark Star? ...Kubrick musta been proud when he checked that flick out,no?

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:09 p.m. CST

    HELLO DAVE

    by THAT__SAID

    Best 2001 video ever... <p> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzK9kMxDcG0

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:11 p.m. CST

    "this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye."

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Sometimes, I wish RPLocke and AsimovLives would heed those words whenever they have a thought.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:17 p.m. CST

    scrote

    by IKilledSuperman

    Some of Carpenters movies are in my top 10. Dark Star isn´t in the Top 10000.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:20 p.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius

    by RPLocke

    So, what's it like living Douche Town?

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:20 p.m. CST

    RE: 2010 is dated but 2001 is not

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    I disagree with that. I happen to think that 2010 is largely underrated. As a stand-alone film, it holds up remarkably well and even manages to conjur up some rather intense and creepy moments that are very reminiscent of 2001. Not to mention the fact that it has a worthy performance by Roy Scheider and closing shot that still manages to give me chills.<P>That being said, I will say the the difference in art direction is certainly a valid criticism. It would have been nice to see a continuation of the overall 2001 aesthetic mixed with the then-known science available during the filming of 2010.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:22 p.m. CST

    RPLocke

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    I pity you.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Very, very cool photo

    by dagwood

    Wonder if it's big enough for me to print a hard copy and frame it...

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:26 p.m. CST

    METALHUMAN

    by scrote

    Which ones?

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:31 p.m. CST

    Planty trivia... Iheard that one but I also remember hearing

    by mr dark

    That Kubrick took out a huge Insurance policy from Lloyds of London protecting the film against the discovery or arrival on earth of Alien life forms before the release....I also remember hearing about a different ending that may have also been filmed (but not certain) of it but supposedly Dave Bowman Star Child blinks his eye and sets off all the orbiting weapons circling the earth..Thats what I heard was considered and possibly shot for the ending..I think it may have been a little dark but would have made total sense...ala Doctor Strangelove..

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:34 p.m. CST

    Tritium

    by EpilepticLurcher

    It wasn't Kubrick that got all the tech right in 2001, it was the genius that was Arthur C. Clarke that wrote the movie. Two geniuses combined to make the masterpiece that is A Space Odyssey.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Kubrick, Personal Subjective Rankings

    by Aquatarkusman

    1. Barry Lyndon (I'm a sap for it) 2. Dr. Strangelove 3. Paths of Glory 4. 2001 5. Full Metal Jacket (were it only the first half, it would be #3) 6. A Clockwork Orange 7. The Killing 8. The Shining 9. Lolita 10. Spartacus 11. All the other ones I either forget or haven't seen.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:39 p.m. CST

    EpilepticLurcher...good point.

    by tritium

    I wish I had made note of Clarke's important role in my original post.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Sound + Vision = ?

    by Flummage

    Some things just make me glad to have existed, so I could, in some small way, find a fleeting humility in their having shared the same absurdity of a universe as I seem to have. <p> I think art, even geek culture, is for many, in part, a hunger to collect and accumulate the best things of human endeavour and experience and acknowledge their existence among so much that is meaningless. Thinking that 2001 even exists, at a given random moment, is a small but enduring comfort against mediocrity and compromise and indifference to the wonder of life, even in its absurdity.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Mr. Dark....the starchild detonating the orbital

    by tritium

    nukes is not something you imagined. It actually is in the novelization of 2001.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:42 p.m. CST

    Those Monoliths Do Love Their Titan

    by Aquatarkusman

    All these worlds are yours, except for Titan. Get the fuck off my lawn!

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:42 p.m. CST

    EpilepticLurcher you are certainly correct..

    by mr dark

    2001 was made with the direct involvment of A. Clarke he definetly deserves the kudos..I still marvel at yhow right they really got things but were very, very, optimistic regarding how far we would get by 2001..I have my doubts that man will be capable of surviving on the earth or being able to afford this type of reach of Space Travel..We have to get our shit together enough to be able to achieve such things and all signs point to a failure to do so as of lately

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Damn, it was Europa

    by Aquatarkusman

    Should Google before posting. I guess Titan is too cold and methane-y and probably orbits the wrong planet or something.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:43 p.m. CST

    EYES WIDE SHUT is so under-rated.

    by planetran_fan

    Haters just wanted to trash Kubrick and Lucas in 1999.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:45 p.m. CST

    scrote

    by IKilledSuperman

    Thing from another world and In the Mouth of Madness (both the best Lovecraft interpretations on screen so far)

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:45 p.m. CST

    I've seen 2001 ASO on TV, VHS & DVD over the years...

    by WeylandYutani

    but I finally saw it on the big screen a few weeks ago. <P> It was sublime.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:48 p.m. CST

    2001

    by scrote

    -a masterpiece but c'mon, 2010?? Wasn't Peter Hyams brought on as a hired hand by the studio? I like some of Hyams' stuff - High Moon, I mean Outland, Capricorn One - but this choice of director was just wrong. And all of that preachy Day The Earth Stood Still-style commentary by scheider's character towards the end was just cringe-inducing...

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:48 p.m. CST

    This is probably the most common picture...

    by ricarleite2

    ... since this series of behind the scene pictures began. You can find dozens of those on google images. But it's a particular image I enjoy.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:49 p.m. CST

    Tritium ...Its been years since I read the novel but

    by mr dark

    I do remember that...I sure hope it was filmed and that one day that scene sees the light of day. I would give my left nut to be able to go through Kubricks notes on scenes and deleted footage and all the stuff that is I'am sure tucked away..maybe one day it'll all surface

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:49 p.m. CST

    Metahuman

    by scrote

    Cool choices. Madness is underrated...

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:53 p.m. CST

    2001 is one of the movies my Dad made me watch as a kid.

    by Ironhelix

    I had no idea what the fuck I was looking at, but it lodged itself in my head and had a little to do with who I grew up to be. Thanks Dad.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 8:55 p.m. CST

    Watched Mouth of Madness two nights ago

    by mr dark

    I thought it was pretty damn good the scene at the theater in the end made my skin crawl..It was a great attempt by J. Carpenter to adapt Lovecraft but I read elsewhere it was a total box office failure..as for the Thing from another world it sure does share some of the story line of Mountains of Madness, locale, creatures with tentacles, yeah it sure seems like it was.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:01 p.m. CST

    KUBRICK'S EARS

    by scrote

    ...look freaking huge in that pic...

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:01 p.m. CST

    Carpenter´s Thing

    by IKilledSuperman

    One of those rare occasions when it all just comes together perfectly. Actors, script, locations, Rob Bottin on acid, music, lighting, Rob Bottin on acid, rhythm, sound fx, and oh... Rob Bottin on acid ;-). And let´s not forget the wonderful banana dog from Stan Winston!

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:03 p.m. CST

    I am Bella

    by susankq1111

    I strongly recommend ______ B l a c k w h i t e C u p i d * C o m ______ to you where I just found my interracial boyfriend! You know it is a great place to meet black men and beautiful women. What's kind of relationship do you want? ;)

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:04 p.m. CST

    2010 (movie) would definitely benifit

    by ObiBen

    from a better musical soundtrack. The 80's synth chords gives a weird direct to VHS feel to the whole affair.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:06 p.m. CST

    mr dark

    by Planty_McPlant_Plants_His_Plant_At_AICN

    yes the Star Child does indeed detonate the orbiting nuke in the novel. Its hinted in the novel that the Star Child is something of an ominous power, not necessarily good news for mankind. "The Earth was a plaything for Him. He didn't know what he would do next, but He would think of something..." Quite an ominous ending.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:09 p.m. CST

    Planty_McPlant_Plants_His_Plant_ At_AICN

    by IKilledSuperman

    Didn´t read any of the books. Was the Starchild in the book supposed to be Bowman re-incarnated in the book? That´s what I got out of the movie.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:11 p.m. CST

    ROB BOTTIN

    by scrote

    ...is a fucking genius. Watched the Dante episode of TZ again the other night...wow...and as for the shit he pulled in Legend - that stuff is superlative effects work...oh,uh and back to the topic at hand; Dick Smith's work on 2001 is exemplary...didn't he have rick baker as his protege at one point?

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:16 p.m. CST

    Rick Baker

    by IKilledSuperman

    Yes, I think he was Smith´s right hand in 2001.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:17 p.m. CST

    Dante??

    by IKilledSuperman

    What´s that? Twilight Zone? Which series and what episode number??

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:17 p.m. CST

    The end of 2001

    by ObiBen

    remains the one of the most terrifying and powerful things on film to date. The alien whispers as Bowman ages alone in this hotel simulacra just gives me the creep. If this is not the best SF movie, it's easily in the top 3.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:18 p.m. CST

    Scrote I think you may be correct....I think Baker

    by mr dark

    got his Schlock gorrila suit and great expressive mask from working with D. Smith...If I also remember right didn't all the people playing the apes in the beginning die in a plane crash coming back from the shoot..can anyone verify that ancient memory?

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:19 p.m. CST

    Uuups

    by IKilledSuperman

    Baker assisted in Planet of the Apes, not 2001. Of course Baker wasn´t on 2001, LOL

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:20 p.m. CST

    by IKilledSuperman

    or was he??? have to go to IMDB...

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:21 p.m. CST

    Metahuman_slayer - Starchild

    by ObiBen

    Close. It's Bowman evolved. And I highly suggest reading the book. It was meant to be a companion to the movie. The book delivers the narrative, the movie the spectacle, mood and atmosphere.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:21 p.m. CST

    Metahuman

    by scrote

    You remember the Twilight Zone movie from 1983? The third section was directed by Joe Dante and the prosthetic stuff/mechanical puppetry was put together by Bottin; it's cartoon-ish from a stylistic viewpoint but meant to be so...

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Egads

    by dukeroberts

    I have never been able to stay awake when attempting to watch this movie. Three times I have tried to watch it, and three times I have fallen asleep. So boring.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:23 p.m. CST

    by IKilledSuperman

    Ok ok, Stuart Freeborn did the 2001 apes,Baker the Planet apes.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:28 p.m. CST

    Obiben It is an amazing scene at the end

    by mr dark

    Each time something is noticed by Bowman he transends to the next step..first the breaking of the teacup, then the whispers , then noticing the bed, than the monolith, it all is put together so perfectly...This film goes beyond being a motion picture and indeed transcends itself to high art and concept..It was one of the few films that I saw repeatedly during my youth..I lived just within walking distance to a Cinerama theater in Las Vegas..It later became Cinedome and than eventually a church...I did all my worshipping while it was still a theater and in full 70mm goodness. By the way I saw this in many different altered states and many times straight as an arrow..It was always a pleasure to just see it.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:28 p.m. CST

    metahuman

    by scrote

    Freeborn? cool..oh and by the way, aside from the Bottin effects in Dante's ep and the fourth section of the TZ movie - it ain't worth wasting your time on, trust me.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:29 p.m. CST

    tritium

    by jameskpolk

    If I remember my science fiction cottectly, many of the masters of the genre predicted the spinning habitat/ simulated gravity thing. Clarke and Heinlein both had humans on spinning ships. People who thought about it already guessed that muscles would atrophy if not used.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:31 p.m. CST

    meta human you are correct sir , Stuart Freeborn...

    by mr dark

    but what was the story about the ape actors do you recall?

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:33 p.m. CST

    scrote

    by IKilledSuperman

    Yep, I saw the movie and liked it as a kid, so I tried to re-watch it a couple of months. Couldn´t sit through to the end, LOL.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:34 p.m. CST

    Also notice that the wine glass...

    by Planty_McPlant_Plants_His_Plant_At_AICN

    in the hotel room. When the glass breaks the stem of the glass looks like the shape of a bone. Like the bone in the beginning of the film tossed up by the ape. Very very clever visual imagery. Kubrick was indeed the greatest.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:34 p.m. CST

    after the film

    by frank cotton

    the actual year 2001 was one of the greatest disappointments ever.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:35 p.m. CST

    mr dark

    by IKilledSuperman

    They (2001 production) were in doubt if the Oscar committee thought that they had used real apes, because they weren´t even considered. Is that what you meant?

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:37 p.m. CST

    Planty_McPlant_Plants_His_Plant_ At_AICN

    by IKilledSuperman

    Never noticed that, will watch for it next weekend, thanx..

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:37 p.m. CST

    2010 is in the Psycho II/Jaws 2 position...

    by Nasty In The Pasty

    ...of being a damn good sequel to an untouchably great predecessor, which causes all three of these films to be consistently underrated. None of them touch the first films, of course, but considering how bad they COULD have turned out (look at Jaws 3 & 4 and Psychoes 3 & 4 for examples), it's amazing how solid they are. Richard Edlund's effects in 2010 are still amazing, and the film brings up some truly fascinating ideas and concepts.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:39 p.m. CST

    Another thing about the wine glass.

    by Clavius

    At the end of Jewish wedding ceremonies, the couple will stomp on a wine glass wrapped in a cloth. The shattering of the glass, (both in the ceremony as well as in the film) is symbolic of something transforming from one state of being to another.<br> <br>Agreed, Kubrick was brilliant and this is my all-time favorite film.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:40 p.m. CST

    by IKilledSuperman

    web.me.com/maeztro/SWblog/Star_Wars_blog/Entries/2009/7/19_A_tribute_to_Stuart_Freeborn_2.html

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:41 p.m. CST

    The Mystery Science Theater 3000 take on this

    by RPLocke

    on 2001 with their last episode was fantastic.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:41 p.m. CST

    Meta Human I thought they all died in a plane crash

    by mr dark

    coming back from the film shoot..I just remember something like that occured during the filming..I could be wrong though..

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:43 p.m. CST

    by IKilledSuperman

    I don´t know about that story.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:44 p.m. CST

    Clavius good point I didn't think of that but it is true..

    by mr dark

    It is also one of the films I have seen the most times in a theater for sure of that...

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:45 p.m. CST

    My God...

    by Nasty In The Pasty

    ...it's full of stars...!

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:49 p.m. CST

    THANKS METAHUMAN

    by BringingSexyBack

    Think I'll be watching 2001 again pretty soon. Finally I'm able to piece everything together.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:56 p.m. CST

    THERE ARE ALIENS!??!?!

    by BringingSexyBack

    I thought the monolith, starchild and all that was God's doing. Color me silly!

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 9:58 p.m. CST

    5 HOUR ENERGY

    by BringingSexyBack

    Absolutely essential for 2001 viewing. Or in Harry's case, Inception.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 10:01 p.m. CST

    SO THE DISCOVERY OF THE MONOLITH ON THE MOON

    by BringingSexyBack

    was a milestone for humankind that triggers some form of contact with the aliens? Am I getting this right?

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 10:02 p.m. CST

    ALL THESE YEARS I THOUGHT IT WAS ABOUT GOD

    by BringingSexyBack

    Jesus. Or maybe ... Clarke is saying there is no God God and the aliens are our creators / God?

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 10:04 p.m. CST

    Was it 2010 where the laser melts the icecube?

    by BBSloth

    I loved that scene

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 10:06 p.m. CST

    monolith

    by BBSloth

    BringingSexyBack- yes the monolith was a sentinel which alerted the aliens once disturbed. Read Clarke's short story The Sentinel for more info

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 10:07 p.m. CST

    BSB It was actually more like a burgler alarm

    by mr dark

    it sent a signal to jupiter deep space which was where they headed to next..I remeber an interview with A. Clarke saying it was an intergaltic burgler alarm..Letting the Aliens know we had made it out of our cradel and taken our first steps on the moon..and were on our way out from there. pretty cool concept and certainly possible.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 10:13 p.m. CST

    it's full of stars!....

    by iwasredempted

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 10:16 p.m. CST

    THANKS GUYS

    by BringingSexyBack

    That's fascinating. I'm totally rethinking it in a new light. It's been quite a few years since I saw 2001, and I only caught 2010 once and was not very interested. But this makes me want to watch both back to back again. Much obliged! Aliens! Unbelievable.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 10:21 p.m. CST

    why does anything have to be about god...

    by iwasredempted

    that's the problem with religious lunatics. always trying to take ownership of everything. scientists want to know. religious people want to control. grow up freaks....

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 10:27 p.m. CST

    i want to know how they transmit the alarm...

    by iwasredempted

    it would take centuries for signals that humans know to reach the next closest galaxy. the point where the monkey throws the bone to the end of 2001 would be considered seconds to an alien race that had interstellar travel technology right...i'm not an expert but that's what i would assume.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 10:31 p.m. CST

    it would be great for some one to give protector...

    by iwasredempted

    the kubrick treatment. lovely novel by niven.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 10:33 p.m. CST

    iwasredempted

    by IKilledSuperman

    I just read the 2061 and 3001 summaries on wikipedia. It seems even Clarke can´t decide if the signals travel faster than light or not. BTW, good thing I did that research about the sequel books. I think I´ll skip them to not destroy 2001 for me. Too much retconning and banalizing of the monoliths, Bowman and Hal. So the monoliths are just supercomputers who copy people into their holographic circuits? Bah, banal.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 10:41 p.m. CST

    Metahuman_slayer....

    by iwasredempted

    i did the same thing with dune. i stopped reading the subsequent sequels. each sequel novel seemed to diminish the original for me.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 10:47 p.m. CST

    Dune, yes

    by IKilledSuperman

    I went through the same,LOL. Actually at one point it just became boring....the messiahs children....the messiahs grandkids...it just degrades into a big multi-generational soap-opera.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 10:53 p.m. CST

    My 2001

    by MapMan

    I first saw 2001 on CBC when I was an elementary school kid. I didn't know much about the movie except that it was science fiction. I was disappointed that there were these apes in the beginning and I thought that after the commercial the movie would begin. Alas the apes were still there so I did something else.<br><br> In high school our english teacher had some novels to read and one was 2001. I plowed through the book and now it all made sense. When I revisited 2001 again it made perfect sense and I absolutely loved it. I even have the 25th Anniversary Laser disc of it.<br><br> To this day 2001 remains my favorite science fiction film and A. C. Clarke is one of my favorite authors. I have read most of his book and am sorry we have recently lost him. He was also a brilliant physicist and came up with the idea for geostationary satellites. <br><br> To this day 2001 stands up very well. It is almost note perfect in terms of realism. I would love to see it on the big screen as it should be seen.<br><br> If Media Messiah chimes in again about how boring 2001 is I will beat him to death with his own femur.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 10:56 p.m. CST

    mr dark - 2001, 70mm Cinerama

    by ObiBen

    In the words of Lacombe, "I envy you"

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 10:59 p.m. CST

    DIDN'T "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US"

    by BringingSexyBack

    appear on Bowman's monitor? Or is that another movie?

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 11:01 p.m. CST

    MapMan "I will beat him to death with his own femur."

    by iwasredempted

    how 2001 of you.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 11:05 p.m. CST

    Metahuman_slayer....

    by iwasredempted

    i just hope, and this is my ego speaking, that centuries from now one of my spawn will be a part of the transcendental migration of the human species to an entity of pure thought that can circumvent the limitations of faster than light travel. unfortunately my significant other doesn't want children. thank god....

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 11:11 p.m. CST

    I'm glad I wrote to Arthur C Clarke before

    by RPLocke

    he passed on. He signed a copy of 2001 for me. He is one of my favorite writers of all time.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 11:16 p.m. CST

    THE PAWN STARS WERE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUY CLARKE'S

    by BringingSexyBack

    Taj Mahal coins but turned down the offer because it was too rich for them. But Rick got the chance to hold them and was glad he did.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 11:21 p.m. CST

    Faster than light communication

    by Mr Lucas

    simple - quantum entanglement. Haven't you played Mass Effect 2?<P> As for the set - yes it's quite impressive but it's just a giant washing machine tub really. It's not exactly a Rolls-Royce Trent engine.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 11:22 p.m. CST

    I have a great picrure of Clarke in one my

    by RPLocke

    old magazines where he's standing with Ford and Spielberg. He's even wearing an ET shirt.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 11:25 p.m. CST

    All of the computer monitors are 16 mill projectors

    by UltraTron

    displaying hand-done animations. All spinning 70 feet up. I just rode X2 at magic mountain. Profound experience really. I now know what it is to fall off a skyscraper construction site and bounce off girders on the way down. You see cars in the parking lot 10 feet away upside down -it freaks you out. Like a death preview. That should be the ad. Fucking amazing ride

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 11:27 p.m. CST

    Great anecdote in the 2010 preface

    by ObiBen

    Clarke recieving a photo of Iapetus taken from Voyager I...On the moon, a large white oval with a dark spot in it. The picture was accompanied by a note from Carl Sagan saying "Thinking about you"...Needles to say, I plowed through the book in no time.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 11:31 p.m. CST

    iwasredempted...

    by tritium

    The monolith on the moon didn't send it's signal into interstellar space...it sent it to Jupiter. That is why the Discovery was sent to Jupiter space, because humanity knew that was the destination of the transmission. Whatever answers were to be found, with regards to the enigma of the Monolith (and perhaps it's origins), were hoped to be revealed by the Discovery mission.<p>The Monolith not only acted to "uplift" our early homonid ancestors, but also as beacon or early warning station. The Monolith on the Moon was used to alert the "E.T.'s", when mankind had advanced enough to become a high tech, spacefaring civilization. Once it was excavated on the Moon, and Heywood's team touched it, it sent a signal to the Monolith orbiting Jupiter.<p>The Monolith that orbited Jupiter was the stargate, which transported Dave Bowman across light-years to his final destination.<p>Also, just an FYI, mankind's radio transmissions have been going on for approximately 100 years, so, evidence of our intelligent, technological civilization exists an ever expanding sphere, currently of radius 100 or so light years. Our radio transmissions would take 2,500,000 years to reach even the nearest galaxy, Andromeda.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 11:31 p.m. CST

    Mr Lucas - More than just a tub

    by ObiBen

    You should see a picture of the outside of the thing...How do you wire all the electrical for the lights and monitors in a free rotating gimbal? It was quite an engineering feat.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 11:46 p.m. CST

    tritium, brilliant....

    by iwasredempted

    thanks man. so the starchild might possibly be an abstract representation of our progress and not god or creation. that's why i visit this sight. if you look past all the garbage some times you get some pretty good insight.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 11:48 p.m. CST

    "uplift" good word by the way my friend....

    by iwasredempted

    word of the day.

  • Sept. 6, 2010, 11:55 p.m. CST

    iwasredempted...

    by tritium

    No prob. While there certainly many valid interpretations of the very ending of 2001, one of the more common interpretations is that the Starchild represented the next evolutionary step of mankind. In other words, the aliens "uplifted" Dave Bowman, and his conciousness was "re-born" as a transcendent being. Thus, the Starchild can be seen as both a metaphor for his re-birth into our next phase of evolution, as well as looking down upon our imperfect and flawed civilization with the innocence and wonder of a newborn baby.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 12:23 a.m. CST

    it could also represent

    by frank cotton

    the upcoming birth of the new star

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 12:25 a.m. CST

    i'm a little tipsy so i'll throw this out...

    by iwasredempted

    maybe souls are transcendental numbers, which are complex numbers that are not a root of any non-zero polynomial with rational coefficients. yeah i googled that. ha.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 12:31 a.m. CST

    to expand on what tritium said

    by smackfu

    I always interpreted the Monoliths as 'broadcasting' ideas and facilitating perceptual evolution. It allowed the monkey-man to mentally evolve by giving him a simple idea, using an object as a tool. Likewise, the Jupiter monolith was 'broadcasting' perceptual evolution. Imo this is why HAL started going crazy as they approached it. HALs artificial intelligence was close enough to a real mind to be affected by it, though with unpredictable results.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 12:47 a.m. CST

    terrific work Quint!

    by Excelciyour

    I've never seen this 2001 BTS still and it's got the principle actors + Kubrick which makes it 10/10. Bravo!

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:05 a.m. CST

    @smackfu

    by MapMan

    You're right. Primitive man was on the verge of extinction and would have died out from starvation had the Monolith not intervened. The Monolith gave them the ability to develop tools for hunting and self-defense.<br><br>I guess they have no 'Prime Directive'.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 3:04 a.m. CST

    Ever noticed, that Kubrick invented tablet computers?

    by tomimt

    The astronauts are using flat viewers to watch their interview, while they are eating.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 3:32 a.m. CST

    He had video phone calls from orbit to earth, costing

    by V'Shael

    a couple of bucks.<br /><br />So he was a few years out on that. But basically, yeah, he was a visionary.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 3:48 a.m. CST

    This talkback has descended into

    by belasco_house

    relevant, good-natured discussion..<p> I actually didn't realise this still went on. Yay x 3.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 4:16 a.m. CST

    tomimt...beat you to it. See my post re: iPad

    by tritium

    somewhere up above. :)

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 4:22 a.m. CST

    tritium... blasted...

    by tomimt

    and there I was thinking for once I was first at something :D

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 4:25 a.m. CST

    realistic

    by macheesmo3

    If you wanna know what it would really be like to be on a space ship hurtling towards the unkown with a computer as yer boss.... how could it be more perfect? Seriously, all the supposed " difficult bits" are fairly obvious if you look at everything in that sort of context! We are born, we ae afraid, we discover the world that we are given, we attempt to control it, discover it controls us, we rebel, we are reborn with a new enlightenment. ( as an individual anyway, can't say that the masses get this) I saw the film as a perfect encapsulement of the modern human condition. From start to finish!

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 5:19 a.m. CST

    This is by far the most intelligent discussion

    by NeverTalksBack

    I've ever seen on AICN. Simply amazing, this is what film and art in general are all about. Great discussion people.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:12 a.m. CST

    STILL have'nt seen this..

    by BookhouseBoy

    Oh the shame...

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:12 a.m. CST

    I hope one day I will actually understand 2001.

    by Mr Nicholas

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:16 a.m. CST

    My God, it's full of stars!

    by Royston Lodge

    I love love love 2001, but it's frustrating how one of the coolest lines is only in the novel.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:18 a.m. CST

    "16 years mustve been the longest gap for a sequel up until then

    by buggerbugger

    Nope. There was a 27-year gap between Fritz Lang's 'The Testament of Dr. Mabuse' (1933) and 'The Thousand Eyes of Dr. Mabuse' (1960) and a 23-year gap between 'Psycho' (1960) and 'Psycho 2' (1983) just the year before '2010' was released in 1984.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:21 a.m. CST

    If you want to understand 2001...

    by Royston Lodge

    ...read the novel.<p> Clarke wrote the novel after he and Kubrick had written the script. <p> I think it intentionally fills in the blanks that were unavoidably left in the movie do to the limitations of fx at the time.<p> When you read the novel you realize what they were TRYING to accomplish with that wacky ending, and you realize how close they actually came.<p> The ending really is an example of the fx technology not being up to the challenge of the writer's/director's vision.<p> If the movie had been made a few years later the ending probably would have made more sense.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:22 a.m. CST

    The emergency airlock scene....

    by tritium

    To this day, I am still amazed how fucking realistic it looks. For a LONG time, I was convinced that Kubrick actually shot it on one of NASA's "vomit comet" planes. You know, the ones that fly the parabolic trajectories to provide 20-30 sec of zero-G.<p>Anyway, this sequence is pure movie magic, and is the most realistic simulation of actual zero-G physics/motion I have ever seen on film. (Apollo 13 doesn't count, because that was real).<p>I saw a video in which Keir Dullea recounts how the shot actually was performed. It was incredibly dangerous, and Kubrick couldn't use a stuntman because Keir Dullea's face ends up right in front of the camera when his character is initially blown out of his Pod. So Keir agreed to do it, and they (luckily) got it on one take. If you watch the scene carefully, it is his "rebound" after striking the far end of the air lock, and as he heads back towards the open hatch, which is so incredible. The rotation of his body on the rebound, and the "floating" motion that is achieved when he stops himself at the airlock repressurization control panel...simply amazing. Looks like Kubrick may have overcranked the camera, as well, which helps sell the effect. <p>So many subsequent films set in space do a poor job of replicating weightless motion with any degree of fidelity. I always get a laugh when the best they can do is tell the actors to move really, really slow. As if somehow, when your weightless, you are suddenly swimming through mollases.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:28 a.m. CST

    2 other things Kubrick/Clarke invented.

    by Royston Lodge

    1) Debit cards/phone cards: Dr. Floyd uses a card to pay for his phone call.<p> 2) Product placement: The Pan Am spaceplane, the Bell videophone, and the Howard Johnson hotel inside the space station. They could have easily just made up generic-sounding fictional brand names, but they chose to use real brands to make it more relatable for the audience.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:31 a.m. CST

    I love the HAL 9000 Macintosh ad...

    by Royston Lodge

    ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHJkAYdT7qo

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:32 a.m. CST

    2001 in todays movies - Inception etc

    by CARTMANEZ

    You still 'see' 2001 in todays movies - Inception (Maurice Fischers death scene)...Tron 2 (Jeff Bridges apartment)...Superman Returns (Superman lifting the kryptonite island into space)...Star Trek 2009 (Enterprise corridors, Kelvin crewmember getting sucked out into space)

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:39 a.m. CST

    "This is by far the most intelligent discussion"

    by CARTMANEZ

    yep - we need a BTS pic from Barb Wire or Transformers 2 to reset the balence

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:41 a.m. CST

    Royston Lodge

    by KelseysNuts

    Isn't the line "My God, it's full of stars" used in 2010? I seem to remember it being in that film, but it has been quite some time since I last watched that. 2001 = the most visually stunning sci-fi film. Kubrick = genius.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:43 a.m. CST

    i want to send AICN this BTS pic i have

    by CARTMANEZ

    of Shatner and Nimoy dressed as Kirk and Spock with Clint Eastwood on the set of Star Trek TMP from a Clint Eastwood movie book i got ( i guess Clint mustve paid a visit inbetween shooting Escape from Alcatraz)...but havent a clue how to go about doing it (aint got no scanner or the like)

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:49 a.m. CST

    "the actual year 2001 was one of the greatest disappointments ev

    by CARTMANEZ

    amen to that - i still cant believe 2001 has been and long gone and we a now living in 2010 the year we make contact...its crazy

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:50 a.m. CST

    "I hope one day I will actually understand 2001."

    by buggerbugger

    It's a pretty straightforward story. <br> <br> Super-advanced aliens see it as their duty to search the cosmos for other signs of life. When they find it - such as Mankind's ancestors on Earth - they send down a Monolith to the planet's surface. When touched, the Monolith imparts handy nuggets of information to the primitive life-form, such as how to use tools, fashion more advanced tools, etc., which will eventually lead that life-form down the path of creating an advanced civilisation. <br> <br> The second stage of the aliens' plan is to bury a second Monolith beneath the surface of the planet's moon - because they know that one day, Mankind will have advanced enough to travel there and discover that there's something beneath the moon's surface sending out some mysterious signal or form of energy. Once the Monolith is unearthed and touched by the now-sentient Mankind, it sends out a signal to its creators, in the direction of Jupiter, to basically give them the heads-up that they've successfully helped another species - Mankind - evolve enough for space travel and be another potential partner in a vast interstellar community. <br> <br> Having unwittingly triggered stage two of the aliens' plan by touching Monolith Two on the moon, Mankind sends out the spaceship Discovery to Jupiter to find out where the signal is being beamed to and what its purpose is. When the ship arrives in Jupiter's orbit, it finds that the signal's destination is the heart of a third Monolith, which acts as a 'stargate', part of a huge interstellar highway system that allows all the advanced life-forms in the universe to travel huge distances and meet each other, etc. <br> <br> Dave Bowman travels through the stargate and is then force-evolved into the Star Child by the aliens who nudged us along the path to intelligence all those millennia ago. The Star Child will return to Earth as a messenger, to let the inhabitants of Earth know that we are not alone in the universe, that there is intelligent life out there and that we are now part of that interstellar brotherhood.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Little puppet foxes tomorrow!!

    by Six Demon Bag

    Yay!

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 7:45 a.m. CST

    The Dune books do indeed fall off a cliff

    by gooseud

    Book 1: probably my favorite pure sci-fi book, awesome.....Book 2: very average, one of the most depressing books ever written, alot of the same ideas as Book 1 without even a single molecule of the fun, forward momentum, or energy.......Book 3 onward: turgid, incredibly ponderous, and unreadably boring.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 8:43 a.m. CST

    Rather than a remake, how about a limited series

    by Sonny_Williams

    incorporating all of the Odyssey books, one book per season? It would take a pretty good budget to do it well, but I could see HBO, Showtime, or even Starz pull it off. 2001 and 2010 both had a lot of material that didn't show up on screen due to both time constraints and limits of effects technology at the time. Find THE LOST WORLDS OF 2001 for a fascinating read on bringing 2001 to the screen and how Kubrick and Clarke revised the story again and again to make it filmable in the '60s.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 8:57 a.m. CST

    ObiBen

    by Mr Lucas

    electrics on a rotating cylinder? Easy - a male/female circular plug and socket. I have one connecting my kettle to its base.<p> The 'my god it's full of stars' line is in one of the films. It's used as a sample on something (maybe an Orbital track?).

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 9:25 a.m. CST

    2001 and 2010 are an incredible double feature of science ficti

    by George Newman

    I love both films. 2001 is much more cerebral and experiential while 2010 is much more straightforward with its science fiction story. 2010 really caters to those that are interested in the story, the mystery of the obelisk, the lore, and it helps you understand the first film even better. It's a fantastic original story that i never get tired of.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 9:31 a.m. CST

    'My god it's full of stars' sample

    by EpilepticLurcher

    The sample is on Space Face by Sub Sub, the dance band that became Doves. They finish their live set with it now with a 2001 montage on the big screens behind them. Here's the original http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifPpU3QgQZc&feature=related

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 9:36 a.m. CST

    I don't like comparing the 2 cuz they were made with diff intent

    by George Newman

    2001 had its story to tell, but it was much more of an artistic exercise--a beautiful one visually, musically, and intellectually. <p>2010 elects to focus on the continuation of the story. It would be fruitless to try and one up Kubrick artistically, so the new producers just tell a straightforward bit of science fiction. There are a couple moments of 'homage' (homage from a direct sequel seems a bit silly, but it was made nearly 20 years later so it's excusable) in the music cues and it just misses the mark. So luckily the film does not try to copy its predecessor too much.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 9:54 a.m. CST

    best movie ever

    by smudgewhat

    yep. genius. the seeming inhumanity of the humans vs. the very human machine. weird stilted dialogue from weird stilted devious humans who can't really can't imagine the next level of intelligence in the universe. until it pulls them across the galaxy involuntarily.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 10 a.m. CST

    Halfbreedqueen - Alien ships

    by ObiBen

    Yes, the pulsating cubes seen in the stargate sequence are alien ships. In the novel, Bowman passes through a huge space terminal with hundreds of spacheships going in and out. I don't think the movie representation decision is due to fx limitations (they could have done something with models). I think Kubrick/Trumbull went with the Slitscan approach to keep the thing more trippy and exotic.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 10:04 a.m. CST

    Mr Lucas - Kettle

    by ObiBen

    Yeah, but your kettle doesn't have 6 astronauts, a mad computer and a shitload of lights and display screens, doesn't it? ;)

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 10:08 a.m. CST

    an awesome book about the movie:

    by smudgewhat

    http://www.amazon.com/Making-Kubricks-2001-Jerome-Agel/dp/0451071395/ref=sr_1_16?s=STORE&ie=UTF8&qid=1283872065&sr=1-16

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 10:14 a.m. CST

    I do love this film...

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    Simply inspirational and awe-inspiring.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 10:30 a.m. CST

    Models in the stargate sequence

    by IKilledSuperman

    would have banalized the aliens. They had to be shown as esoterical, that´s their theme in 2001. Close to magic or godlike to our limitedd understanding.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Metahuman_slayer

    by ObiBen

    Exactly. And I think it works beautifully. Before reading the book, when I was a kid, I used to go "Are these what I think they are?". Kubrick understood that often less is more.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Making of book

    by ObiBen

    I got this one, a pretty good read. http://www.amazon.com/Making-2001-Odyssey-Modern-Library/dp/0375755284/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283872719&sr=1-1

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 11:30 a.m. CST

    Good thread

    by ObiBen

    reminds me of discussions we used to have here circa '95 with King Gidorah and company. Before the dark times.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 11:40 a.m. CST

    pic, conversation..

    by Wyndam Earle

    i credit 2001 as the first movie that made my 15 year old-ADD addled brain(at the time of watching the flick)relax and concentrate for an extended period. After reading this book and other classic sci-fi literature(co-sign on the Dune sequel books not living up to the first!), I was pumped to watch this. Afterward, my mom(whom had been watching with me), couldn't belive that I had sat through it. Great conversation, everyone, thank you!

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 11:54 a.m. CST

    in 2010 does Max travel through the stargate?

    by CARTMANEZ

    'Max you bastard answer me!!'

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 12:07 p.m. CST

    KelseysNuts: Yes, it was spoken in 2010, but...

    by Royston Lodge

    ...in 2010 it was a recording of Dave Bowman's last words, which were uttered in 2001, just never uttered on-screen.<p> As such, 2010: The Year We Make Contact references at least one story element that was only in the 2001 book and not in the 2001 movie.<p> It's the best evidence that Clark really did intend for people to read the book in order to fill in the gaps from the movie, and that the "you have to judge the movie on its own merits" argument has flaws.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 12:09 p.m. CST

    The book also explores the ape-men in much more detail.

    by Royston Lodge

    It gives them names, provides us with their internal "monologues", and stuff like that.<p> I'm perennially surprised by the number of people who have seen both movies but have never read any of the books.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Regarding the ape-men...

    by Blue_Demon

    I read an interview with Stuart Freeborn in STARLOG years ago. He said that the first designs for the Dawn of Man sequence showed less hairy, aboriginal-looking creatures. Kubrick did not want to shoot close-ups since they would be nude. So Freeborn took casts of their crotches (his words) so that they could put appliances on them that would hide the genitalia. Kubrik hated the look and decided to go with the full-hair body suit.<p>Freeborn's mecanical solution for making the apes roar and growl was so successful that it was used years later for Chewbacca. Cool, eh?

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 12:48 p.m. CST

    One of my top favorite movie

    by AsimovLives

    Smart, meticulously well made SF made by a very talented filmmaker for audiences which the filmmaker presumed are made of intelligent people. I could say that they don't make them like that anymore, though they still do, only scarcely. And this is why people called Nolan the new Kubrick, with some exageration, because Nolan made a smart movie that didn't dumbed down to audiences nor was made with the provision that audiences are made of idiots. It's a sad state of affairs today that if a filmmaker makes a smart movie, he's called the new Kubrick. It means how rare and scarse proper smart SF movies are made today. It's sad, really sad.<br><br>And i miss Kubrick. I miss him so very much. I miss the eagerness to wait for his next movie. There will be no more Stanley Kubrick movies anymore. It's a sad heartbreaking though.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Kammich

    by AsimovLives

    My kinda man. I'm in awe that you at 14 in this day and age your reaction to 2001 was "holy shit" instead of "need mroe CGI and Michael Bay should had directed it, it would be so cooool!". Kudos to you, friend. You are alright!

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 12:56 p.m. CST

    CARTMANEZ

    by AsimovLives

    One of the reasons why i like STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE is that 2001 vibe about it. And since i'm such a big fan of 2001, you do the maths.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 12:59 p.m. CST

    I ha ve seen this photo before...

    by AsimovLives

    ... but i'km not complaining, it's great to see it again. Quint's choice is great. there is something about this photo that truly tells the way and is a wondow to Kubrick as a director and how he made movies. Iconic.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:09 p.m. CST

    RPLocke

    by AsimovLives

    I was never bored with ST:TMP story and pacing. Never. The movie and it's story intrigued and enthralled me from begining to end. And i never understand the complaisn about it being boring or slow. It's paced as it should for the telling of that story. Robert Wise knew what he was doing, and he knew it perfectly.<br><br>That Princkett revieweror whatever he's called, he did a great analogy for the movie: he compared it to listening to a symphony. and that's what it is, it's a Star Trek Symphony. Goldsmith's score drives that point even more. To watch ST:TMP is like to listen to a Debussy or Ravel symphony, or Gustalv Holst's THE PLANETS. I compare WRATH OF KANH to a beepop jazz tune, it replays other known songs but tuirn it into it's own thing and plays it fast and furious and super-cool. It's different then ST:TMP symphony, but no less cooler or classy. You know what i mean? Maybe i should post this in the other talkback, what do you think?

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:10 p.m. CST

    And 2001 is like a symphony

    by AsimovLives

    It's movies as big orquestra. Where the stars dance in tune. Ebert called 2001 the movie where the stars danced. He's right.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:15 p.m. CST

    RedEaglez

    by AsimovLives

    Don't forget that gary Lockwood co-stared in the TOS episode WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE, the second pilot shot for the series and which was actually aired (but which not as the first episode aired, weirdly enough). Lockwood played Kirk's friend who got infected by that space entity and slowly became a god and a major prick who threatned to destry the enhterpise but all living being son the Galaxy. Great episode. you could tell that Gary Lockwood stared in two Sf classics, and they were shot in the same year (the actors stuff in 2001 was shot in 1965-1966, about the same time when ST was shot and first aired.)

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:17 p.m. CST

    CGI is a crutch

    by Kentucky Colonel

    and hollywood's legs are broken

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:21 p.m. CST

    The Dawn of Man sequence is:

    by ColonelFatheart

    Kubrick's way of rewriting the Fall of Man myth from the Bible or any other number of creation myths.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:26 p.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius

    by AsimovLives

    "this conversation can serve no purpose anymore" could be used whenever anytime you post, douche. It's you whose conversation serves no porpose at all. The irony in your post is so tick, one would need a chainsaw to cut through it. Get real.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:31 p.m. CST

    i agree, ST: TMP is very '2001'-like

    by smudgewhat

    2001 is the superior flick but i've really grown fond of the first trek. it's not a kids flick at all though, which is why it took so many lumps.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:34 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives - 'Star Trek: A Space Odessey'

    by CARTMANEZ

    its nice to have one movie in the Trek film series that is a true bone fide Science Fiction epic with the 2001 feel.<p> the rest were like the tv show done big with action, humour, fun stuff (with Trek II being the absolute perfect balence) and of course ST09 is the Michael Bay version of Trek (not that thats a bad thing)

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:36 p.m. CST

    ST: TMP is a Gorgeous Film

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    No 2001, of course. But Kirk's shuttle flight to the Enterprise still evokes chills and tears.<BR><BR>Pisses me off when I think of Kirk's careless, poorly delivered "My God. What have I done?" after sacrificing his beloved ship in the poorly conceived and executed STIII:TSFS.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:39 p.m. CST

    tritium

    by AsimovLives

    It's now udnerstood that aliens wouldn't know we are here from our radio transmissions, and this is becasue we now know that radio transmissions deteriorate with distance. It's like an exagerated version of water ejected very fast from a shower, and as the water would became like a mist, the radio signal spread out so much that it loses consistency and becames just noise not too different from the background radiation radio noise that is about all around the galaxy. Which means, it's another stone in the shoe and another hit to the notion of we being discovered by another intelligent beings, or we discovering them via radio signal. There's goes the romance about this. Reality is a bitch.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:39 p.m. CST

    As a child of 70's Britain...

    by cushing1967

    For a long time in the 70's I really couldn't get past Rigsby / Reggie Perrin popping up in it as Smyslov - it was as weird to me as it would be Arthur Lowe playing Dr. Zaius. I was always annoyed that he wasn't funny in it.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:40 p.m. CST

    CARTMANEZ

    by AsimovLives

    "... and of course ST09 is the Michael Bay version of Trek (not that thats a bad thing)"<br><br>It is. Very.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Le Vicious Fishus

    by AsimovLives

    I happen to like Star Trek III and i think it's a very underrated movie. Before i compared ST:TMP to a symphony and ST:II to a beepop jazz cool song. I compare ST:III to a 50s rock'n'n roll song, it's naive but it's very charming and cool listening and one can't help but like it.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:48 p.m. CST

    Le Vicious Fishus

    by AsimovLives

    Also, notice that kirk got his emotional shock when he learned of his son's death. That he mananged to be more cool about the Enterprise's destruction, which he did to save lives, strikes me as a right use of sentiments and emotions, and characterization. It's good to see that Kirk would be more shaked by his son's death then a ship, cool as it was.<br><br>Still, i count Kirk retunr to the Enterprise scene in ST:TMP as one of the greatest cinematic moments i ever seen in the movies. It's what i call perfect cinema moment, when a scene is driven by images and sound, or in this cas,e music, and there's no need to say anything about what characters are thinking, because, it's all there. People say that Shatner hams it up, but in thatr scene, he plays it down and subtle, and just right. In his eyes is all to know what Kirk is thinking and feeling. Shatner, Wise, Goldsmith and the SFX crew made magic.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:48 p.m. CST

    2001 thematical siblings

    by ObiBen

    ST:TMP, CE3K, Contact

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Jesus, we can't help ourselves, can't we?

    by AsimovLives

    We turn everything into a discussion about Star Trek! 2001, dammit, focus!!

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:51 p.m. CST

    ObiBen

    by AsimovLives

    Don't forget MOON, SOLARIS (both versions) and SILENT RUNNING.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:52 p.m. CST

    ObiBen

    by AsimovLives

    Don't forget DARK STAR either, which is both parody and hommage.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:54 p.m. CST

    ALIEN also hommages and nods to 2001

    by AsimovLives

    Specially in the cryogenic pods opening sequence. SCott admits as much. Though The Kubrick movie that made the most impact in Scott as a director was BARRY LYNDON. Scott's earlier visual style which reached it's zenith in BLADE RUNNER was extremely influenced by the cinematoghraphy from BARRY LYNDON, which then Scott emulated and copied through his earlier movies.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:56 p.m. CST

    Paul WS Andersons 2001 remake...

    by CARTMANEZ

    the Discovery crew wake up and turn into zombies. Bowman (played by Milla Jovich) and Frank Poole (Colin Salmon) start shooting them all as Hal (voiced by Sean Pertwee) tries to plot an escape route on the various levels of the Discovery...<p> Bowman evacs the ship and blows it up - goes through the stargate and battles the head zombie that she shoots in the head and saves the earth

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Here are my 2 biggest problem with STIII:

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    *SPOILERS* <BR><BR>1. It ruined (i.e., rendered meaningless) one of THE best and most moving film deaths I've ever had the pleasure of seeing. Bringing Spock back was the worst kind of bad comic book resurrection conceivable. Don't even get me started on the "science" behind the plot.<BR><BR>2. The destruction of the Enterprise was not nearly traumatic enough for Kirk. Hell, he should've at least walked off alone for a few minutes to grieve. This was the ship he professed his undying love for and loyalty to on multiple occasions in TOS. One shrugworthy line and a lame, convenient assessment by Bones was the emotional grand total of the Enterprise's destruction.<BR><BR>"Never lose you. Never." <BR> - Kirk, to the Enterprise -- "The Naked Time"

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 2:01 p.m. CST

    SOLARIS: Tarkovsky's or Soderberg's?

    by ColonelFatheart

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 2:01 p.m. CST

    I vote Tarkovsky.

    by ColonelFatheart

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 2:08 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives - 2001 siblings

    by ObiBen

    I consider Moon, Solaris and Silent Running more as aesthetical siblings, though Solaris comes close thematically. But good call on these, they are definitely in the same family, one way or the other. BTW Solaris is pretty tanscending and powerful too! (And the remake was kinda decent).

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 2:13 p.m. CST

    Tartovsky by a few lightyears.

    by ObiBen

    It's one of these films that manages to evoke concepts difficult to describe by language alone. Made on a shoestring, beautiful images, great performances, a striking essay on the human condition and the meaning of life, love and reality itself. Like 2001, it will always be re-watched, discussed, debated and analysed.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 2:14 p.m. CST

    Star Trek: The Motion Picture

    by TallanDagwood

    Or, as my friends and I called it at the time, Star Trek the Slo-Motion picture.<p> I found it a huge disappointment as a child. I was and still am a great fan of Star Trek. So it was with great anticipation that walked into the theater to see the movie. I remember the back page of every comic book I purchased had ads featuring the bald but beautiful Persis Khambatta. That was good, but, I wondered why the real cast was not featured more prominently? <p> The movie seemed geared more towards the small hard core sixties Trekkie's, instead of the audience that had been built up since its cancellation. Seemingly deliberately ignoring that audience that had ignited its popularity in reruns. <p> People wanted to see the interaction between Kirk and Spock and Bones. They wanted to see the bridge crew and here Mr Scott utter his iconic phrase. But most of all, they wanted to see the real star, the Enterprise, in action! <p> This was just a scant two years after Star Wars, whose success was responsible for Star Trek the motion picture getting a greenlight, and yet the producers willfully ignored what made Star Wars such a massive success- combining, incredible, never before seen action and effects with appealing characters. <p> Star Trek should have been a rousing success - proven likable and iconic characters, and a history of having epic space battles on a shoe string budget while never sacrificing the telling of a great story. <p> Instead, we got a brooding Spock who does not even step onto Enterprise until well into the movie.<p> We get the 'bigger is better' treatment, with a full bridge crew that only serves to obscure the original crew. We get zero interaction between the big three. And the Enterprise is reduced to being a giant shuttle craft for all of the use it is put to while tracking down the villainous, Voyager space craft. <p> To my youthful eyes, the story was slow developing and ponderous, not to mention a tad bit self-congratulatory and pretentious. <p> It felt as if the producers were saying 'This is Star Trek not some popcorn movie - we take this seriously'! <p> It was taken far too seriously in my opinion at the time - and although time has slightly rounded the edges on my dislike of that movie, I still can only watch it as an artifact of a bygone era, as opposed to a great Star Trek movie such as Khan.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 2:15 p.m. CST

    Le Vicious Fishus Star Trek III

    by CARTMANEZ

    what was Kirk supposed to do then? break down and cry for about 5 minutes - he had Spock and Savikk to find before Kruge sent the order down to kill them after just witnessing his crew go up in flames.... plus Kirk had just lost his frickin son about 10 minutes before - maybe that put the loss of the Enterprise into perspective abit<p> Trek III is the 2nd best ST film IMO behind II. and id put ST2009 3rd best (just b4 FC)

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 2:16 p.m. CST

    I mean Tarkovsky (made a typo)

    by ObiBen

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 2:20 p.m. CST

    CARTMANEZ

    by AsimovLives

    You keep 'em coming those hack's versions of 2001. They are hillarious.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 2:26 p.m. CST

    Nods to 2001 - See you next Wednesday

    by ObiBen

    Landis took that from 2001, right?

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 2:29 p.m. CST

    ST TMP mustve been a Phantom Menace sized disappointment in '79

    by CARTMANEZ

    for the reasons mentioned in TallanDagwoods post there. <p> yeah with time its easy to forgive and see it as a 2001ish version of Trek as theres Khan etc to enjoy but i cant imagine to disappointment fans mustve had in 79 when thats what theyd been waiting for for the best part of 10 years<p> can you imagine the anticipation of a HUGE budget Star Trek movie? Star Wars just out near enough the year b4 whetting everyones appitite for space action...they mustve been expecting mass space battles, phaser fights, fist fights, Kirk Fu and drop kicks, nasty aliens, Kirk Spock Bones banter, that eerie uncanny Twilight Zone vibe alot of the season 1 eps had....and instead they got Star Trek A Space Odyssey

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 2:40 p.m. CST

    Yeah, but movies during the 70s were slower

    by RPLocke

    paced than today. People think Star Wars was fast paced action, but really the Tattoine portion of the movie doesn't really pick up until we meet Han in the Cantina.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 2:45 p.m. CST

    Bryan Singers 2001

    by CARTMANEZ

    virtually the same with a Keir Dullea lookalike as Dave. Ropes in Douglas Rain as Hal again and CGIs Roy Scheider as Dr. Heywood Floyd<p> movie audiences the world over in confusion as to why it was made as Singer announces he plans to go all '2010' on the sequel..

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 2:48 p.m. CST

    TallanDagwood

    by AsimovLives

    The beautiful thing about STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE is that even though spured by STAR WARS's sucess, it didn't became another STAR WARS movie buy by name only, it didn't bended itself to the STAR WARS style, it sturbonly remained STAR TREK and did it all to be it's own movie, which the major inspiration being the other SF movie which had it's closest intellectual paralelism, 2001: A SPACE ODDYSSEY. And that was a brilalnt decision. with ST:TMP, Star Trek remained Star Trek. Star WEars spured it, but it didn't influenced it. Cue 3 decades later, and some m indless hack with a deficit of imagination did what mindless drones wanted back in 1979: a ST movie made at the image of SW, totally decharacterizing and erasing what made St it's own thing instead of an imitation. The irony? George Lucas is a major fan of Star Trek.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Keir Dullea today looks EXACTLY like he did at the end of 2001

    by CARTMANEZ

    google image the dude - no shit he looks EXACTLY like he does at the end when hes having dinner - Has to be one of the few cases where a person aged so much like their makeup artist predicted...usually its way off

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 2:51 p.m. CST

    CARTMANEZ

    by AsimovLives

    How can tyou be so right about STAR TREK III and so wrong about Abram's BREWRY TREK? It that an american thing or something? Maybe i should even stop trying to understand, hem? Though as the saying goes, hell is the impossiblity of reason.

  • Hard to believe, because the film is MASSIVE on its own, but I think the widescreen format doesn't really give you as good an idea of the enormity of the set as a portrait image like this can.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 3:03 p.m. CST

    CARTMANEZ - Age makeup

    by ObiBen

    Jesus H Christ on a Sit'N'Spin! This is uncanny! I wonder if F. Murray Abraham will end up resembling his Salieri at the end of Amadeus.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 3:16 p.m. CST

    CARTMANEZ

    by AsimovLives

    What the movie didn't got right was that for his age Dullea is still a pretty sharp and agille old man. And if you just listen to him talk, you would think the man is barely out of his 20s. The man's spirit is still young. The dude is great. and really,,he has that "younger then my age2 thing going on. i mean, he shot BLACK CHRISTMAS 10 years after he did 2001 and he played a very convincing college student, and he must had been in his mid or late 30s by then.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 3:17 p.m. CST

    "Yeah, but movies during the 70s were slower"

    by ColonelFatheart

    And people of today are slower.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 3:19 p.m. CST

    JT Kirk

    by AsimovLives

    Actually, the widescreen does give you an idea of how big the set is... if you seen it projected on the big screen in a theater. It's almost vertiginous. It's the closest thing to Imax you can ever experience. People who bash 2001 or call it boring is because they never saw it project on the big screen. They would shut up in a second if they did. 2001 is more then just how it was shot and how it was intended to be projected onscreen, but boy does it make a difference!

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 3:27 p.m. CST

    ColonelFatheart

    by AsimovLives

    I certainly believe that audiences in the 70s were far more pacient then today's. They could endure a mvoie which had no hurry to present it's ideas. Many filmamkwers, even exploitation filmmakers, assumed that audiences wanted some smarts to go with the entertaiment, and they weren't affraid to show some contorvetial ideas or two and end the story ina downer if need be. for example, notice how in the PLANET OF THE APES saga, only the last one ends in something we could call an happy ending of sorts, all the others are downers. My beleif is that in the 70s, audiences and filmmakers were on the same wavelenght. I don't think they are anymore. Most filmamkers with few exceptions believe audiences are dumb by default and believe movies shoudl dumb down and presented in simplistic fashion. I do admire the way movies were made in the 70s, and the direct relationship that filmmakers, movies and audiences had. It's admirable and enviable.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 3:38 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by TallanDagwood

    I think the reason Khan resonated so well with all audiences - both original diehards, and newbies, was because it stayed far truer to it's roots than The Motion Picture did. <p> I think were The Motion Picture faltered, was by trying so hard to please the hardcore fans who appreciated intelligent story telling of the TV series, while trying to jumpstart a movie franchise and placate a studio who did not see the TV series and its stars as a bankable commodity without adding bells and whistles. <p> It also tried too hard to differentiate itself from Star Wars by sacrificing part of its identity. <p> Star Trek could be both intellectually stimulating and action packed without one quality diminishing or over shadowing the other. <p> But in the wake of Star Wars success, it seems as if the producers became a bit miffed about the attention being paid SW and decided that they did not want to be compared to just some 'space adventure' fantasy - so they eliminated one of their own qualities - action, that made them great. <p> If the story and characterization had been up to the levels of the TV show, as was the case with The Journey Home, then you would not need all kinds of battles, but unfortunately that was not the case. <p> Khan brilliantly resurrected the franchise by returning it to its true roots. <p> I do understand fans appreciating the Motion Picture, and it was without a doubt wonderful to see characters I had followed on the small screen make the jump, but I felt then and still feel today that the true movie franchise was launched with Khan. <p> Stripped down, bare bones, great story telling, great action, great characterization. It was Star Trek.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 3:52 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by Le Vicious Fishus

    "How can tyou be so right about STAR TREK III and so wrong about Abram's BREWRY TREK?"<BR><BR>It's because ST III sucks ass. The story sucks; the acting sucks; the pacing sucks; the whole conceit of the film sucks.<BR><BR>Sorry to differ with you on a film just this once, pal. I'm not sure what you think its redeeming qualities are. Maybe you had too much nostalgic fondness for the characters in your youth.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 4:08 p.m. CST

    yes, movies today move faster

    by smudgewhat

    which has all sorts of interesting implications. we 'consume' the content in movies more rapidly b/c we are becoming more like machines ourselves. we multi-task and live in a way that is much different than 30-40 years ago (obviously). we'll eventually merge with our technology anyway.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 4:28 p.m. CST

    I Really Like ST:TMP

    by Autodidact

    Then again, I appreciate sweep, scale, and majesty in my movies. I'm not saying it doesn't have a couple slow parts, but certain parts like Spock's flight through V'Ger are long for a reason. Space is fucking huge man!

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 4:39 p.m. CST

    The aliens are not God

    by Autodidact

    They're just way more advanced than us. See Clarke's quote about how sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. <p>Although they're not God, they might have seeded earth with life. And they do somehow transform Bowman into a far more advanced being who is comprised of energy. <p>Just for the record, I came upon 2001 the right way.. read the Sentinel short story in a SF collection, read the afterword that mentioned it was the inspiration for 2001, and rented the movie. The movie made perfect sense to me at 15 years old. <p>The monoliths are there to act as signals to the aliens that we are evolving. First, past our primal fear of the other, then then past our earthly limitations. The aliens, for whatever reason, are watching us. To them we're probably like paramecium, literally billions of years behind them in the evolutionary sense. So Bowman, powerful and strange as he has become, is still probably only a speck on what the creators of the Monolith are capable of. <p>But they're not god.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 5:12 p.m. CST

    movies today are like big commercials

    by RPLocke

    There's so much product placement, and the cuts are so fast.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 5:16 p.m. CST

    JJ's 2001 (just called '2001'..not '2001: A Space Odyssey')

    by CARTMANEZ

    written by Bob Orci. the year is 2061 (homage to the 3rd book)...a rogue monolith uses the stargate to go back in 1968 and takes out Nasa thus creating an entirely new timeline...Bowman Prime (Keir Dullea) follows and arrives 33 years later in 2001 when mankind has never discovered the monolith on the moon...he meets a USAF pilot/astronaut Frank Poole (Karl Urban) who is in a Maverick/Iceman style love/hate bromance with his rival the studious young Dave Bowman (Cillian Murphy). Bowman Prime instructs Poole to team up with nuBowman in order to destroy the bad monolith and re-initiate the Jupiter program....

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 5:32 p.m. CST

    CARTMANEZ - Well done!

    by ObiBen

    Dubbed 2001: The 2001 in the following RedLetterMedia dissection. ;)

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 5:33 p.m. CST

    The best Trek movie is TMP

    by ObiBen

    Second best is Galaxy Quest.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 5:35 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives - i think i dig BREWRY TREK...

    by CARTMANEZ

    cos its the first real Star Trek movie since 1991...plus i kind of dig the whole timetravel/alternate reality Terminator-esque/Trek to the Future stuff...i know its pretty much Michael Bay does Trek with all the fast cuts, lens flare, crazy action etc but im ok with that

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 5:35 p.m. CST

    Asimov Lives

    by tritium

    Radio waves (all electromagnetic waves) fall off in strength as the inverse square of the distance. Nevertheless, a sufficiently advanced technological civilization (i.e., more advanced than ours) could conceivably detect even very faint E-M radiation at interstellar distances. There is no law of physics broken. It just requires a receiver with the required sensitivity.<p>There are approximately 15,000 stars within the 100 light-year volume of space around us. Of course, there could conceivably be even more advanced methods of detecting our high tech civilization, by a more advanced ET civ. Our fission-based nuclear reactors give off neutrinos at a specific energy (different from the energies from solar neutrinos) which might be detectable by a suitably advanced civilization.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 5:43 p.m. CST

    This is definitely one of the best TB's

    by Kammich

    In quite some time. It just goes to support a quote I once read from Arthur C. Clarke where he said, "If you completely understand '2001', then Kubrick and I failed. The intent was to raise far more questions than we answered."

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 5:57 p.m. CST

    Another nod to ST:TMP

    by MapMan

    My favorite of them all (ST:TWOK is breathing down it's neck though).<br><br> ST:TMP was a great movie to just sit back and watch. Great story, visuals and soundtrack. I've seen it dozens of times.<br><br> My one compalint of Tarkovsky's Solaris is that the scene in the car was too short. It should have been much longer.<br><br> Moon and Sunshine have been some recent SF movies that are throwbacks to good SF movies. I was surprised (and a bit disappointed) that Duncan Jones said he was more influenced by Alien and Outland than 2001.<br><br> I really wish that "Rendezvous with Rama" would get made. Fincher was attached to direct at some point but I think the project is in development hell at the moment. I'd love to see some visionary director tackle this project in 2D!

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 5:58 p.m. CST

    Duncan Jones directed "Moon"

    by MapMan

    n/t

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 5:59 p.m. CST

    TallanDagwood

    by AsimovLives

    I think both ST:TMP and TWOK are both very accurateand true to the TOS. Remember that the series alternated more adventure type stories with more cerebral stories. Sometimes you had it both ways like in BALANCE OF TERROR. Both movies did it right about the TOS. The good thing about TWOK which should be applauded is that despiste went to a more adventure direction, it still didn't forget such things that made Star Trek what it was, meaning, it still gave importance to characterization,. specially about the holy Trinity of Kirk, bones and spock, but is also had a recurring theme that payed up from start to finish and gave the story it's soul. Too many people have claimed to have followed and be inspired by that movie, inclidung Abrams's latest, but in truth all they have done is just copy mere superficialities... and a bad job at that.<br><br>ST:TMP is sadly underrated. As for the myth that it was a box office flop, that's jsut that, it's a myth. Adjusted for inflaction, the movie not only was made with a budget half of Abram's movie, but it did a bigger box office result. The myth of the flop was the result of internal Paramount politics. The new administration that took over Paramount did what all studio administradiosn to, they underplay their predecessors sucesses, eve saboutage them, so they can make the predesessors look bad and they look like the saviors opf the studio. ST:TMP was a victim of such circunstances, and myth of it flopping startedand was blidnly accepted as fact when in fact it's just one of those nonesnese that didn't happened and grossly misinterpret and present the reality of the situation.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:04 p.m. CST

    Le Vicious Fishus

    by AsimovLives

    I actually saw the ST movies very late in my teens. I never saw ST 3 in the theater, i only saw it on video, VHS to be precise. As for the TOS TV show, i only saw it whole last year, last setember to be exact. Do i have a youthful nostalgia about STAR TREK? Actually, no. I have never been more of a fan of the show then i'm now. I once had a very sporadic knowledge of the show. Know i know TOS, the TV show and the movies all. Only now. And i don't go for the established dogmas, of the even numbers good/odd numbers bad ST movie dogma stuff. I laught at that. ST 3 is underated, and ST:TMP is the only ST movie that has truly put the awe in me. It still does.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:06 p.m. CST

    And even you guys who dislike ST 3...

    by AsimovLives

    ... have to admit that the scene of the stealing of the enterprise and the escape from the dock is a one hell of a scene. And Christopher Lloyd as the honourable klingon villain, how can you not love that?

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:07 p.m. CST

    And the score too

    by AsimovLives

    Damn, James Horner knew how to make scores back then.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:09 p.m. CST

    "Get real."

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Dude, you're so full of hot air that it's ricockulous. How the hell do you look at yourself in the mirror each day?!<P>Don't answer that...I really don't want to know.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:11 p.m. CST

    tritium

    by AsimovLives

    Maybe that civilization could understand the aritifcial origin of the radio waves from Earth, but they could not make anything out of the, they would be nothing but snow crash.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:12 p.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius

    by AsimovLives

    Next time i want to know something vfrom you, i'll tell you what to say. Until then, bug off. You have nothing i have any interest for.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:12 p.m. CST

    One thing ST:TMP did well...

    by MapMan

    ... was make the Enterprise a real character. TOS established the look but TMP really fleshed it out. I was so fascinated by the Enterprise in TMP. I think we take spaceships for granted now.<br><br> When ST:TMP came out there was a model that came with lights for the hull. The problem was, the lights shone through the plastic and the plastic was so week on the nacelle where it attached that they sagged. It really pissed me off!! When it was all lit up it looked really cool.<br><br> Let's get back to 2001 though...

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Fuck you, AsimovLives.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Fuck you, plain and simple.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:21 p.m. CST

    tritium

    by AsimovLives

    So, if ii understand you corectly, there's 3 type of enutrinos in existence inthe universe: Those resulted by the big bang, those produced by the stars, and those produced by humans due to nuclear reactions. That's interesting to know. Now the thing is, it's very difficult to detect neutrinos. They are the least reactive element in the whole universe. Scientists have to come with clever ways to detect them like using thr whole of the antartica ice sheet as target and regist impacts from a high stationed ballon or satellites. Or fill whole empty mines with a water-antifreezer solution and hope that one neutrino reacts with an atom for for each million of galons of the liquid. Maybe some other civilization canhavebetter enutrino detectors then we have today. but i'm not one of those who advocates that there's much more advanced civilizations outher far surpassing ours. If there are other civilizations, which i think there are, i think they are on a similiar level as our own. I reckon this due to the ageof the universe, and how it's so necessary to build one from a planet that surrounds a second generation star, because only second generation stars can have planet,s because the planets and everything in them are made of atoms others then hydrogen and heloium which were all produced inside stars which then later went nova and ejected the material, the remains being what made a new star and the planets that orbit it. It happened to our sun and our solar system and our planet Earth. Thus, needing such to exist, i don't think other civilizations far antecedate ours. Not by much, anyway. And i don't think there are spacefaring civilizations. Not as presented in Star Wars or Star Trek, anyway.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:24 p.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius

    by AsimovLives

    Finally your true self, without the veneer of hypocrisy. you are just liek i though you were. not suprised nor disapointed, just justified. and again, shut up, you uninteresting nobody. If i wanted you to say something, i tell you what to say. Otherwise, scram and reduce yourself to your own insignificance.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:24 p.m. CST

    Whaaa???

    by Skyway Moaters

    A civil discussion in an AICN thread?! A thoughtful exchange of ideas?! *THUNK* (conexxions bloak faints dead away)...

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:28 p.m. CST

    Spoke too soon, Skyway.

    by ColonelFatheart

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:31 p.m. CST

    Hey Asimov...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...this is me talking to you without you telling me what to say. What are you gonna do about?<P>Do you realize what a pompous fool you are? Or is all irony lost on you? I mean, I know there is somewhat of a language barrier here, but there is NO WAY you can possibly be this dense. Even RPLocke knows when he's full of shit and that's saying something.<P>It's clear that the rumors surrounding your alleged Asperger's Syndrome may be more on the mark than previously thought.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:32 p.m. CST

    Gaius: Are you saying Asi is a Portuguese Sheldon?

    by ColonelFatheart

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:33 p.m. CST

    You guys have been great

    by AsimovLives

    Not Mr. Nice Gaius, but he doesn't count. Anyway, this has bene a great chat. Seems that movies like 2001: A SPACE ODDYSSEY can bring the best and bright from people. It really warms my heart to know that 2001 is so beloved by so many here. It truly made my day. It's also great to know that ST:TMP is finally gaining some respect andf love from the geeks (next, the mainstream... here's to hoping). ST:TMP has been the ON HER MAGESTY'S SECRET SERVICE of the Star Trek movies, the one people used to kick around, bnut is now gaining a new appreciation and recognition and repect which truly deserves. Next, STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK. It can only go up.<br><br>OK guys, sleeping time for me now, see ya tomorrow. "Unfortunately, that sounds a little like famous last words".

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:34 p.m. CST

    ColonelFatheart & Skyway Moaters

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    It's okay. That cheesedick, Asimov, and I go way back. We're just funnin'.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:34 p.m. CST

    ColonelFatheart

    by AsimovLives

    I'm a portuguese... me. Should suffice well enough. As for Mr Fail Gaius, what he says is irrelevant. He always was.<br><br>Good-night.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:37 p.m. CST

    ColonelFatheart

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Umm...maybe?

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:39 p.m. CST

    I know you're Portuguese, Asi.

    by ColonelFatheart

    You represent the Iberian with heart and determination. < P > be with you.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:40 p.m. CST

    Good night, Asi. Keep trekkin' that chicken.

    by ColonelFatheart

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Most tend to find Asimov irrelevant. They always have.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    What they have issue with is his unwelcome ability to turn nearly every Talkback into a "discussion" about himself and his obsession with J.J. Abrams, Michael Bay, STAR TREK, TRANSFORMERS, and Chris Nolan. In the process, he annoys the fuck out of dozens of Talkbackers who would like to see the TBs go in a different direction every once in awhile. Unfortunately, they can't compete with someone who posts for hours on end; largely reposting the same vacuous arguments and vitriol that he's been posting for the past 2-3 years.<P>Nobody questions his passion for movies. Even I will give him credit for that. But he seems so disengaged from reality and obsessed with maintaining his online persona and fighting a war on subjective taste that no one asked him to fight.<P>Anyway, I'd better go. He didn't tell me to say this and that might make him angry!<P>;^)

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:53 p.m. CST

    Well, 'mostly' civil...

    by Skyway Moaters

    Asimov? Gaius? Knock it off! You're spoilin' the vide dudes...

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 6:54 p.m. CST

    Skyway Moaters - No worries!

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 7:10 p.m. CST

    I used to have problem with Asimov too MNG...

    by Skyway Moaters

    But since he's (mostly) put down the "STINO torch" (thank the web gods for small favors), I've realized that he's just very passionate (albeit it in a rather immature and naiive way) about films and filmmaking. He and I 'revere' a lot of the same films and filmakers. <p> You appear to me to be older and wiser. Tolerance is a beautiful thing. To quote Spock in TWOK, when asked by Kirk how he thought the very young and inexperienced crew of the Enterprise would deal with the emergency mission to Regula 1: "As with all things, according to their 'gifts'"...

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 7:14 p.m. CST

    Seriously dude...

    by Skyway Moaters

    ... save your ire for jackasses like "The_Choppah"...

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 7:28 p.m. CST

    Get Star Trek out

    by EpilepticLurcher

    We are talking about a bonafide movie classic and all this Star Trek talk is lowering the fucking tone way down. 2001 is sci-fi at its best, Star Trek in all it's guises is popcorn pish.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 7:34 p.m. CST

    And before anyone feels the need to point it out...

    by Skyway Moaters

    I am a total hypocrite. I get on my soapbox far more often than is reasonable. Kind of a rough patch for, oh, the last ten years or so? I try to stay in "The Buddha nature", but my frustrations frequently get the best of me. <p> Trubba Not. {;-0

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 7:47 p.m. CST

    CARTMANEZ: But disconnecting Hal was Frank's idea

    by Nem_Wan

    Bowman may have been smarter (I think Clarke would disagree) but Poole had the assertiveness to suggest the near-unthinkable idea of "killing" Hal, to which Bowman reluctantly agreed. Bowman had his cork in tighter and it didn't blow until Poole was killed and Bowman wanted to save himself and take revenge. I always find Dave's emotions as he disconnects Hal fascinating to try to read. Is he afraid? Excited? Both? He knows he's killing a person, not just turning off a machine.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 7:47 p.m. CST

    By way of further explanation however...

    by Skyway Moaters

    I would just like to add that my "peace-making overature" was inspired by my sheer delight at seeing a mostly civil, sincere and pragmatic Talk Back on an AICN thread for the first time in quite a long time. Not to say that there haven't been other (recent?) examples, merely that it's the first I've personally witnessed in quite a long time... Years?

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 8:24 p.m. CST

    Asimov Lives...regarding levels of high tech civs

    by tritium

    Just wanted to offer counter argument against the probability that other ET civilizations would be more or less equal to our technological level. <p>You are indeed correct that Population 2 stars may be to old (formed to early) to support life as we know it, due to the low density of metals (elements heavier then helium).<p>However, Population 1 stars, of which our sun belongs, have been burning on their Main Sequence for billions of years.<p>We know know that life on Earth started very early after the Earth was formed (within 300-600 million years, with Earth forming 4.5 billion years ago).<p>It is entirely possible that life on Earth got started independantly, multiple times, only to get wiped out by impacts during the late Bombardment Period. Once life as we know it took hold, it stayed as simple unicellular (microbial) for a vast stretch of time...in fact, the majority of Life's history has been spent at a microbial level. Complex life only arose within the past 600 million years. Our earliest, direct hominid ancestors only came on the scene approx. 7 million years ago. Modern humans only appeared within the last hundred thousand or so years, and earliest "civilization" got started only 10,000 years ago. Our "technological" civilization only started within the last few hundred years. When compared to the total age of Earth, our high tech civilization is but an eye-blink.<p>If there are other high tech civilizations out there, it is VERY improbable that they our at the same level of development as us. In fact, assuming high tech Extraterrestrial civs are out there, the greater probability is they are millions (perhaps even billions) of years more advanced then us. Look at it this way, given our continued level of advancements, imagine where we will be a few hundreds of years from now. Extrapolate that into thousands of years...hundreds of thousands of years...millions of years.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 8:26 p.m. CST

    HAL's not a person

    by Autodidact

    No more than the angels are gods.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 8:59 p.m. CST

    Skyway Moaters - Fair enough, sir.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Namaste.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 9 p.m. CST

    tritium: 2010 CRTs

    by Nem_Wan

    Worse than the CRTs in the hospital or on the Leonov was their unfortunate use on the reconstructed Discovery sets, where rear-projection flat screens had been originally. The other mistake was the choice to mix Hal's voice "realistically" as if it was coming from a little speaker in the wall. In 2001 Kubrick had Hal's voice dubbed clear over all channels like the voice of God, which made Hal seem powerful and dangerous. Overall, 2010 is a good sci-fi achievement. The images of Jupiter and its moon look straight from NASA probes. Clarke's sci-fi is solid, particularly the aerobraking, and the coupling of the ships for a two-stage departure. The discovery of chlorophyll as an indication of life at least captures the spirit of bio-sciences and is excusable as a substance a wider audience with a high school science education would know, even if the idea of photosynthesis in reality makes no sense in the deep, shadowed crevices of a Jovian moon. Unfortunately the director and actors look like they sometimes forget when they're on sets that are supposed to be zero-G with sticky boots, such as all the Discovery sets (all outside the centrifuge which was not rebuilt) and areas of the Leonov that are not within its centrifuge. Despite its flaws, 2010 is much harder sci-fi than we have much hope of getting in cinema today.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 9:31 p.m. CST

    I have 2010 on blu-ray

    by Autodidact

    And it is kick-ass.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 9:33 p.m. CST

    Quite the impressive breakdown tritium...

    by Skyway Moaters

    Quite thought provoking indeed. You an astrobiologist or sumpin'? This TB ROCKS! Oh, and namaste to you as well NMG...

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 9:45 p.m. CST

    Crap, "vibe"? Friggin' no edit function havin' ...

    by Skyway Moaters

    *grumble grumble grumble*

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 9:52 p.m. CST

    2010 - what did Kubrick and Clarke think?

    by MapMan

    Did either of these gentlemen weigh in on 2010? I don't think Kubrick was involved at all. Clarke possibly.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 10:11 p.m. CST

    Clarke Thought it was Good, Understanding You Can't Equal 2001

    by Autodidact

    He felt they did a fine job. There's an interview with him about the movie on the 2010 blu-ray.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 10:56 p.m. CST

    2010 - more that just colors flashing

    by skywise404

    it was the first one i saw as a kid and thought it was great but then went to check out the original 2001, and found i did not know what the movie was about. Of course years later my adult brain can obviously descern which is the greater piece of film making but as a kid 2010 was much easier to follow. A bit meatier.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 11:13 p.m. CST

    2010 nod to Clarke and Kubrick

    by ObiBen

    On the cover of the Time magazine that the nurse reads, as the presidents of the two nations on the brink.

  • Sept. 7, 2010, 11:54 p.m. CST

    Isn't 2001 essentially an argument for Intelligent Design?

    by detinue

    Or at least an illustration of how it might work? Not that I believe in that particular theory, but it seems to be what Kubrick and Clarke were getting at.

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 12:14 a.m. CST

    I still want to see the original 3-1/2 hour cut of 2010.

    by detinue

    The one they were showing in previews before cutting it down for the theatrical release.

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 4:29 a.m. CST

    2010 is 26 years old!!

    by CARTMANEZ

    i can remember going to see it NOT THAT LONG AGO...yet its nearly fricking 30 years!!<p> you realise yor getting old and time is moving WAY too fast when futuristic movies you saw AT THE CINEMA are now the year you are living in...<P> they say time is the fire in which we burn...right now my time is running out...we leave so many things unfinished in our lives...i know you understand...

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 4:47 a.m. CST

    youd have thought 2010 wouldve done Dark Knight box office

    by CARTMANEZ

    yet it only made 40m domestic (about 80m adjusted - pretty much the same as The Terminator released the same year) ...<p> by comparison Star Trek III made almost double that (76m).

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 4:58 a.m. CST

    friend of mine once met Lithgow in a bar in Santa Fe in 2001

    by CARTMANEZ

    he said to him 'Holy Shit its Lithgow!' and Lithgow went 'thats JOHN Lithgow to you motherfucker!'

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 5:53 a.m. CST

    Skyway Moaters

    by AsimovLives

    Don't take me the wrong way, but i found it quite amusing that you said i had a naive amd immature way about movies when the movies that i dislike the most are the ones what are simplistic dumbed down blockbusters made exclusively for a teen or redneck democrafics. you got to see the irony in that too, friend. And really, this is no attack or bash on you, it's just me telling you something i just couldn't help find amusing. I'm sure like me you can see the funny side of it too.

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 5:58 a.m. CST

    EpilepticLurcher

    by AsimovLives

    Don't be spo harsh about Star Trek. Yes, in truth, Star Trek is basically space adventure, popcorn if you will. But it's good popcorn, and occasionally quite brillant. Well, it used to. 2001, however, is hallowed, as you very well said it.

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 6:32 a.m. CST

    tritium

    by AsimovLives

    i have to tell you, one of the reasons i came to a 2001 talkback is because i might chance into finding posts with the type of subjects you are discussing about.<br><br>You made an excelent point about the emergence of life on Earth. It's quite interesting to know that life on Earth emerged quite very early, "just" about 600 millions after it became a ball. In fact, as you must well know, the majority of the history of life on Earth was spent with life in the stage of unicellular organisms. About 3/4th of it, if i'm not too mistaken.<br><br>You must also know that the Earth we live in is, and this is a pretty established fact now, we are living in Earth II. This is a second version of Earth. The first version was this ball with was hit by an "asteroid-like" body the size of Mars and the result impact created both our Earth and the Moon. One wonders if in the inicial Earth, if it had time enough to cool and appeared oceans, if there was life in it already going on, due to how fast life emerges.<br><br>One of the reason i'm convinced that life is pretty abundant in our galaxy and throughout the universe is that life itself is not a magical mystical thing, but the natural result and consequence of the laws of physiscs and chemistry. It's quite easy for the life stuff to materialise, because it's so abundant. It's in planets, it's in comets, it's in nebulae, it's everywhere. The jump from molecular constituents to a self-replicating organism is quite a fast and natural process, it's a natural consequence, it's inevitable. The real problem is to go from the unicellular stage to the multicellular. This is the state life on Earth spent most of it's history on, and it's quite understandble why. but as soon multicellularism kicked in, live evolved extremely fast, even with all those mass extinction episodes and Iceball Earth stages.<br><br>The reason i think civilization levels are pretty much leveled out in the galaxy has to do with the time it takes for life to go from unicellular to multicellular. I think this is the big leveler. I think that if there's cilivizations, the differences between each other is more or less correspondent to a few centuries of human technical evolution. If so, all civilizations, if they mannaged to get interstellar "seaborn", they will mutially encounter each others on a pretty similiar technical level. Which might be a very good thing.

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 7:28 a.m. CST

    AsimovLives is one talented

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    Portuguese man-o-war.<BR><BR>Chop on, Brothah!

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 7:40 a.m. CST

    detinue

    by AsimovLives

    I think Clarke would had an heart attack if somebody told him that 2001 would make a case for Intelligent Design. Kubrick, however, would fall from the chair laughing.

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 8:04 a.m. CST

    THE_CHOPPAH

    by AsimovLives

    OK man, i'm going to admit, the "Portuguese Man-O-War" was good. REally good. Made me laugh like hell. You did yourself proud, man.<br><br>for those of you who do not know what a "Portuguese Man-O-War is, here's a picture:<br><br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Portuguese_Man-O-War_(Physalia_physalis) .jpg<br><br>The name came about because some biologist though that the creature remotly looked alike the portuguese carracks of the 15th and 16th century:<br><br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File: SaoGabriel.png

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 8:06 a.m. CST

    CARTMANEZ

    by AsimovLives

    I watched 2010 in the theater not that long ago. Yeah, i know, i came to the same depressing conclusion too. But you know what they say, 40 is the new 20.

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 9:47 a.m. CST

    Badly stated on my part Asimov...

    by Skyway Moaters

    Not naiive an immature about films or filmmaking, but rather in the way you present your opinions in TB. Did you notice that I immediately copped to hypocrisy after making that post? By turns, I'm as naiive and immature as anyone here...

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 10:30 a.m. CST

    AsimovLives, what is 2001 showing if not alien guidance

    by detinue

    in human evolution? The alien Monolith helps prehistoric man learn to use tools, then when man's use of tools gets sophisticated enough to get him into outer space, a second alien Monolith is tripped showing the way to a third distant alien Monolith, which when reached by man evoles him into the Star Child. I'm not saying Clarke or Kubrick personally were in favor of the ID theory (did the modern ID theory even exist in the 1960's?), but that the movie they made hangs its entire plot off of a similar kindred idea.

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 11:43 a.m. CST

    Probably too late to mention this but...

    by Blue_Demon

    movies from the 60s and 70s DO move slower. We were more patient back then. I recently watched "Planet of the Apes" and loved the way the director took his time in getting to the apes. Those long minutes rowing on Lake Powell and walking through the desert really showed how small and insignificant man is in the grand scheme.<p>"It squashes a man's ego." --George Taylor

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 11:56 a.m. CST

    I can't take Tartovsky's Solaris seriously.

    by Royston Lodge

    It's the goddamned black mesh muscle shirt the main character wears. It totally ruins all suspension of disbelief.<p> I cannot pay attention to the story when my mind keeps screaming, "WHY IS HE DRESSED LIKE HE'S TRYING TO HOOK UP WITH A DRUGGED-OUT COUGAR AT A SEEDY BAR?!?!?!!"

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 12:45 p.m. CST

    Remember when Muppet Babies did 2001?

    by Tikidonkeypunch

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 1:10 p.m. CST

    Skyway Moaters

    by AsimovLives

    Yeah, i see your point. You're right, we all could be accuse of that here.

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 1:12 p.m. CST

    detinue

    by AsimovLives

    ID is jsut creationism by another words. so, yeah, it did existed in the 1960s when the movie was made. As for the concept of aliens guiding our evolution, so to speak, that doesn't means they are gods. sheppards more like it. just because aliens shapped our evolution, doesn't make them gods at all.

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 1:13 p.m. CST

    Blue_Demon

    by AsimovLives

    Believe it or not, but my favorite part of PLANET OF THE APES (1968) is the whole segment of the movie until the reveal of the apes. And yes, i loved the slow burn style of those older movies. i love when some new modern movie made today emulate that style as well.

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 1:15 p.m. CST

    Royston Lodge

    by AsimovLives

    Speaking of Tartovsky's Solaris, the actress that palys his "wife" was the daughter of the director of the ruassian movie WAR AND PEACE, the biggest and most expensive movie ever made even today. 500 to 700 million dollars it costed, adjusted to inflaction.

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Asimov Lives

    by tritium

    Cheers, man. I still must respectfully disagree.<p> In my argument, I was trying to convey the enormity of "deep" time. I should have also discussed how sensitive Evolution is to contingency (chance). The fact that we (intelligent humans) are here at all is dependent upon an uncountable number of chance events that have occurred, starting back to the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor). The chain of exact chain of events that led from the LUCA all the way to modern day humans is truly astronomical. Wind back the tape of life, and replay it, the results would not be the same...almost zero chance that homo-sapiens would re-evolve. Just a few examples of contingent events affecting the Evolution of Life on Earth are: impact events, mass extinctions, climate change, continental drift, climate change, cosmic radiation, the likelihood of significant individuals mating and producing progeny, etc.<p> Taking just one example, the K-T impact that wiped out the Dinosaurs. If that hadn't occurred, the diversification (or lack thereof) of mammals would have taken a completely different path. If the K-T impact didn't happen (or happened differently) we wouldn't be here to discuss this on this wonderful talk-back.<p>It is entirely possible that, instead, some descendent of Dinosaur/Avian lineage might have developed intelligence, and that could have happened millions of years ago.<p>If the "Great Dying" at the end of the Permian era (probably caused by an even bigger impact) didn't happen, our solar system might have been colonized hundreds of millions of years ago, by some other terrestrial intelligent organism which could have evolved.<p>Even in recent history (geologically speaking), change any of a number of factors, and our hominid ancestors might never have made it out of the "trees", so to speak.<p>My ultimate point being this...the emergence of intelligent, sentient beings, might have happened much earlier in Earth's history, or never at all. Another way of looking at it is we are very, very lucky to be here. Concluding my argument...the evolution (and timing) of intelligent extraterrestrial life would take a completely different pathway as compared to humanity on Earth. Since the basis of our proposition, here, is that intelligent, technologically advanced civilizations exist elsewhere in our Universe, then basis my previous arguments it is extremely unlikely that they just happen to be at a comparatively identical level of technological development/sophistication to us.<p>Cosmological time-scales being what they are, and given the almost infinite ways in which the intelligent ET's evolutionary development would diverge from our own (i.e. contingency)...the odds are that they are as far beyond us as we are from a shrew, perhaps even a toad.

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 2:14 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives: But did anyone wear a stupid black mesh shirt?

    by Royston Lodge

    ;-)

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 3:47 p.m. CST

    tritium

    by AsimovLives

    I think we are basically in agreemwnt on one subject: we both think that life to exist is quite a easy and natural process. The har dpart is INTELLIGENT life that would create a civilization. And i think in that regard, i'm even mroe skeptical then you on how common it is. I'm convinced that life is quite common on the Milk Way. I fear we migth be the only beings who created a civilization. This could be chauvinism... or just an understanding on how hard and precarious it is for the mergrnce of an intelligent creature.<br><br>Or maybe inteligent creatures like us are a given. as there's life, there eventually will be an intelligent creature sooner or later.<br><br>You mentioned things like cometarian impact as a reason why humans come up because that famous impact exterminated the dinosaurs. You claim,. were it not for it, maybe civilization had come sooner, from some reptilian race. But maybe that impact is just a very natural consequence of the very local circunstances that made Earth as it is, and which mad eit have life and eventually ended with us here. By that i mean, i suspect that for a planet with such abundance of life, it needs a solar system rich of materials so that i can produce a plaent like Earth. The side effect is, also a solar system full of asteroids and comets, the dejects of the processof planet-making that hapened in the earlier years of the solar system. I think this richese of mineral and materials is important for the emergenc eof aplanet that can harbour life. Anywhere, everywhere. The conditions elsehwere don't need to be like to the particulars of our solar system, but it need to be but it similiar to some extent. and in any material rich solar system,,it also means a solar system rich with asteroids and comets. which means, a rich history of impacts. and this means, evne in other solar systems that has life, there will be a long history of constant cometarian and asteroid impact, which will do like it did on Earth, a sort of constant reset the evolution process. ascially, any other intelligent creature that mgithe xist elsewhere is a race which was lucky enough to not get hit by an astroid like the one that killed the dinos. Waht happened hjere on Earth,also happened elsewhere, many time sover. Again, it's another leveler which will help put the history of civilizations on a similiar timeline.<br><br>But the bigger question is not evne this. OK, suppsoed that you are right and there's civilizations that emrged before us and are centuries, even thousands of years advance. You know what, it's not much of an advance anyway. Space travelling is really a bitch. Interstellar travel is nigh on impossible. It's not just a problem of engineering, it's everything. Everything. It's as if the universe conspired to prevent space travel to happen. what's need for it to happen is just mind boggling gargantual. People like to compare space travelling as an extrapolation of the sail sea travels of the 16tha dn 17th century. That is wrong, oh so wrong. The metaphor is all wrong because how it understimates the problem. To make a spacecraft that could travel between the stars is... well, the true metaphor would be to ask a pre-historcal man to build a Saturn V to go to the moon, with all the acessory technology to put a man on the moon and tracking him from Earth. In fact, this analogy is even UNDER-ESTIMATING the problem. 100 or 200 years from now we are on the level of the ancient egypcians trying to build a Saturn V. It's just monstrous. If you ask me, i say it's impossible to leave the solar system, no matter how advance we will be. And evne if we mannaged to be interstellar bound, there will be no instant travels and two day travels to alpha centuri and back. No Star Trek or Star Wars future for mankind. Frankly, i do believe that all civilizations are limitedto the solar systems they are bound, and if there ever be any comunication between the races, it will be through indirect means, like radio signaling. and evne that presents many problems, like the problem of radio dispertion through distance.<br><br>I like star trek, but i'm not romantic enough to believe that's a depiction of a future that will be. I love that futur,e i just don't think it will ever happen. And in the case of Jar Jar Abram's BREWERY TREK, i thank the lucky stars that future will never come to be. thank goodness for small mercies.

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Royston Lodge

    by AsimovLives

    I take you dislike COMMANDO too, then.

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 5:35 p.m. CST

    Only the funny feelings it gives me.

    by Royston Lodge

    heh heh heh

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 6:18 p.m. CST

    Given the time required

    by Turingtestee

    does the average life-supporting planet even have the resources to allow the development of a space-based civilization?

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 6:39 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by EpilepticLurcher

    Interstellar space travel is possible. It could be done in huge spacecraft that supported a large population and may take generations of humans to arrive at the next star but it is possible.

  • Sept. 8, 2010, 6:41 p.m. CST

    Clarke's Rama series of books

    by EpilepticLurcher

    I would love to see a talented director make those into a series of films. That or a big budget TV series in the style of Lost.

  • Sept. 9, 2010, 4:54 a.m. CST

    EpilepticLurcher

    by AsimovLives

    You are severely underestimating the problems of interstellar travel, evne for slower traveling like genrational ships. The probme is everything to do with the endevour. Everything. Even the travel itself makes things extremely problematic. If you think interstellar space inbetween two stars is just a whole bunch of vaccum, forget it, you would be very mistaken. There's dust, cometary objects, even rogue planets to deal with. Dust and asteroid/cometary objects are a collision problem. Evne for generational ships, they would and needed to be travelling at speeds far more then anything we have sent to space today, which means, the pre-collision warning would be severely reducced,and collision probabilities would go from very liketly to inevitable. dust itself would cause a problem because it's the same "small bullet on big boddy" effect. A pinhead sized object hitting a big object at very fast speeds would be like a highly energized and superfast bullet, it could cross the whole ship like an armour piercing bullet. and if it vaporised agasint the hull, it owuld create energy whihc, accumulated, would create a deviation of path of the ship, which all added would create great route errors which would need constant corrections, meaning, more and more fuel needs which means more weight (meaning mas) to the ship which means less habitable and useful cargo space. And the added heat cause by the vaporization would mean taxing the cooling systems. because evne if deep space is very cold, heat would only disperse through irradiation, which is the slowest process heat loss process there is, taking, at the vey least, hours for a very small heat loss process. Rogue planets could be averted if detected. Which would be very hard to detect because since they are isolated form stars, they have no light reflected from them, thus, they are invisible at visible light. Only way to see they would the the sourse of their own light of some wavelenght kind, if they emited a lot of infrared or radio wavelight, meaning they would be a very hot object due to high radiation levels and very active vulcanism. And rogue planets are not just a problem because of direct impact, their gravity could make the ship go off-course. If undeteacted, a rogue planet could make a ship go off-course and the correction could come too late and thus miss the mark.<br><br>And then there's entropy. Long generational voyages could be an entropy deathtrap. Entropy would be a hugh problem just because of the very nature of the voyage. The long an object exists, the more it's subject to entropic effects. Complex objects like machines are all vulnerable to entropy, more so. Even living beings are very suscetible to that, this is mostly why we get old and die. entropy would be a major problem, probably evne unsoluble.<br><br>Interstellar travel can be "possible" only in the most generic optimistical "let's pretend there are no problems" kind of way. But as soom one starts to see the possible problems, then they pile so high that it became truly a representation of the impossible.

  • Sept. 9, 2010, 5:07 a.m. CST

    EpilepticLurcher

    by AsimovLives

    As for RENDEVOUZ WITH RAMA, David Fincher and Morgan Freeman have been tying to make that movie for 15 years now, since they colaborated in SEVEN. The movie has been a bit problematic because Fincher has been adamant in making it completly scientifically accurate in the presentation, which means, to go full 2001: A SPACE ODDYSSEY on it. And that's what's scarying the studios like little teen girls, because studios are scared shitless in making a movie in such a vein, because they believe audiences are made of retards who can't understand anything tha tit not hammered to their faces 20 times in twenty minutes and not edited super-fast because audiences are made of ADD morons, like the spirit that went to making Jar Jar Abrams's BREWERY TREK. Thus, it has taken quite a long while for Fincher to make his RENDEZVOUZ WITH RAMA project. And there's no prospects of it being a reality anytime soon.

  • Sept. 9, 2010, 8:47 p.m. CST

    Monolith provided inspiration, didn't create or design, yet

    by Nem_Wan

    The film doesn't suggest that the monolith did anything to the ape-men other than being present. No telepathy, no brain ray, no genetic reprogramming is necessary. Just being a perfectly regular rectangular solid in a world that had never known an artificial object was spectacular enough. The memory of seeing it and touching it caused one ape-man to start thinking. The creation of the Star Child is another matter. Clearly that is a total transformation. But did the monolith control the process, or was it simply available as a tool that Bowman discovered how to use and directed himself?

  • Sept. 10, 2010, 1:08 p.m. CST

    Nem_Wan

    by AsimovLives

    All questions and no asnwers. Isn't 2001 great?

  • Sept. 10, 2010, 1:19 p.m. CST

    @Nem_Wan Yes, but the NOVEL does...

    by MapMan

    The Monolith definitely influenced Moonwatcher and helped him make the leap needed to ensure the continued existence of man.

  • Sept. 12, 2010, 7:36 a.m. CST

    Three Best SF Movies Ever

    by Ulf_Claesson

    2001, Blade Runner and Tarkovsky's Solaris. Might actually be the three best MOVIES ever, with Barry Lyndon a possible #3 There, it's been said and need no further discussion.

  • Sept. 12, 2010, 7:41 a.m. CST

    Three Best SF Movies Ever

    by Ulf_Claesson

    2001, Blade Runner and Tarkovsky's Solaris. Might actually be the three best MOVIES ever, with Barry Lyndon a possible #3 There, it's been said and need no further discussion.

  • Sept. 14, 2010, 1:44 p.m. CST

    detinue... there's a 3.5 hr cut of the movie?

    by Calico Pete

    Where did you hear about it? Any more info out there?

  • Sept. 17, 2010, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Calico Pete, here's what I know about the 3-1/2 hr cut.

    by detinue

    During August 1984 MGM held two previews of the movie 2010 that featured a cut running approximately 3-1/2 hours long, which I heard about at the time from reliable sources (friends who I knew and trusted who actually saw the film at the two previews). <p> The first preview was in Philadelphia at the Franklin Institute and was held as an invite only event specifically for space scientists and science educators whom the filmmakers asked to critique the accuracy and plausability of the science as shown in the movie. My friend, who was a respected local high school astronomy teacher, got an invite and saw that preview. He loved it.<p> The second preview occured around the same time that August at a regular movie theater in Cherry Hill, NJ. It was shown as an unannounced preview to a random audience, and another friend of mine who was a serious movie buff with well cultivated inside connections, heard about it in advance and got there to see that preview. He hated the film and said the audience seemed to share his sentiment.<p> Both of these friends later told me that the cut they saw appeared finished and ran approximately 3-1/2 hours long. <p> Unfortunately, at the time I didn't pick either of their brains about what was actually on screen as I wanted to stay spoiler free until I could see the film for myself. Even after the movie came out much shortened I assumed for the longest time that there would eventually be a TV or VHS (or later DVD) release of the longer version or at least deleted scenes somewhere, but so far it has never turned up. And I've long since lost track fo my two friends so there is no way to ask them, if they'd even remember it 25-plus years later.

Top Talkbacks