[DaveFi]

Does it to me every time, no matter how many times I've seen it. Never done drugs before but after I see this movie I get the urge to do some blow.

Just sat down with a friend and watched a copy he had off of HDNet Movies and we were blown away.


I read all the books too and the movie just impacts so much more. I think where Clarke went with the books in 3001 was a cop-out. It is a fascinating read though, and I would highly recommend fans reading at least 2001, 2010 and 3001 (2061 is not neccessary, but is fun nevertheless).

 

[FredProgGH]

I am wetting myself waiting for an HD disk version of 2001 *lol* It still freaks me out too and I've seen it at least 15 times. Wish I had HDNet...

 

[Sean Nelson]

One of the things that impresses me about 2001 is that it's visual style is pretty much independent of when it was made. With most films, even if they were set in the "future" or the "past", you can tell from looking at the clothing or hairstyles pretty much when they were made. That's not true of 2001 - it really looks like it could have taken place in 2001, and not like a "1960's Sci Fi movie".

 

[FredProgGH]

Absolutely- it looks way less dated than 2010, that's for sure.

 

[lexa695]

The only mistake they really made was using Pan Am as the carrier for what I guess is the space shuttle. They probably couldn't cut a deal with Nasa. They also had in flight meals

 

[thehun]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Nelson /forum/post/0


One of the things that impresses me about 2001 is that it's visual style is pretty much independent of when it was made. With most films, even if they were set in the "future" or the "past", you can tell from looking at the clothing or hairstyles pretty much when they were made. That's not true of 2001 - it really looks like it could have taken place in 2001, and not like a "1960's Sci Fi movie".

It sure doesn't fool me especially the hairstyles.

 

[khyron]



Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi /forum/post/0


Does it to me every time, no matter how many times I've seen it. Never done drugs before but after I see this movie I get the urge to do some blow.

Just sat down with a friend and watched a copy he had off of HDNet Movies and we were blown away.


I read all the books too and the movie just impacts so much more. I think where Clarke went with the books in 3001 was a cop-out. It is a fascinating read though, and I would highly recommend fans reading at least 2001, 2010 and 3001 (2061 is not neccessary, but is fun nevertheless).

Since we're on the subject, what currently available DVD version of this film has the best PQ? Any identifying feature about the disc or case, or even a UPC, would be much appreciated.

 

[eweiss]



Quote:
Originally Posted by lexa695 /forum/post/0


The only mistake they really made was using Pan Am as the carrier for what I guess is the space shuttle. They probably couldn't cut a deal with Nasa. They also had in flight meals

The views of the earth from space are also flawed. Too bad it was made before Apollo 7 (?) gave us the first great shots of the earth from space.

 

[Flave]



Quote:
Originally Posted by eweiss /forum/post/0


The views of the earth from space are also flawed. Too bad it was made before Apollo 7 (?) gave us the first great shots of the earth from space.

I wonder if 2001 is an example of a film that would actually be well-served with a good 'Lucasing'. For instance, redo the Earth shot you mention with CGI, etc.

 

[PooperScooper]



Quote:
Originally Posted by lexa695 /forum/post/0


The only mistake they really made was using Pan Am as the carrier for what I guess is the space shuttle. They probably couldn't cut a deal with Nasa. They also had in flight meals

You must be a youngin'.

Years ago the evolution of space flight was depicted to be as common place as air travel was then (and today). Pan Am or any other airline carrying the passengers in the movie conveys that idea. Using NASA wouldn't be appropriate.


larry

 

[eweiss]



Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper /forum/post/0


You must be a youngin'.

Years ago the evolution of space flight was depicted to be as common place as air travel was then (and today). Pan Am or any other airline carrying the passengers in the movie conveys that idea. Using NASA wouldn't be appropriate.


larry

Kubrick just happened to pick the wrong airline company. Who knew that by 2001 Pan Am would no longer rule the skies or even exist as a company? On the other hand, I can see some billionaire entrepreneur being the one to finally launch a space airline company and fleet, and name it "Pan Am" as an homage to Kubrick and 2001.


The movie Pan Am:

The image most people remember of Pan Am:

 

[Josh Z]



Quote:
Originally Posted by eweiss /forum/post/0


On the other hand, I can see some billionaire entrepreneur being the one to finally launch a space airline company and fleet, and name it "Pan Am" as an homage to Kubrick and 2001.

It's not out of the question. Someone revived the Atari brand name after that company went out of business.

 

[Josh Z]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Flave /forum/post/0


I wonder if 2001 is an example of a film that would actually be well-served with a good 'Lucasing'. For instance, redo the Earth shot you mention with CGI, etc.

No.

 

[FredProgGH]



Quote:
Originally Posted by eweiss /forum/post/0


The views of the earth from space are also flawed. Too bad it was made before Apollo 7 (?) gave us the first great shots of the earth from space.

True, but at least he was smart enough to give the planet an atmosphere. Remember how the Earth looked in Star Trek (TOS)?

 

[lexa695]



Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper /forum/post/0


You must be a youngin'.

Years ago the evolution of space flight was depicted to be as common place as air travel was then (and today). Pan Am or any other airline carrying the passengers in the movie conveys that idea. Using NASA wouldn't be appropriate.


larry

I was refering more that Pan Am is done, but I get your point about Nasa.

 

[DaveFi]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Flave /forum/post/0


I wonder if 2001 is an example of a film that would actually be well-served with a good 'Lucasing'. For instance, redo the Earth shot you mention with CGI, etc.

God no. Leave well enough alone, warts and all.

If you want updating, read the books and use your imagination. Clarke actually updates the movies in the books as if they took place with present technology. He mentions why he does that in the books.


There are other anachronisms (at least now, not then) like the Pan Am flight like the Howard Johnson's cafe in the space station terminal, Bell Telephone on the video telephone, etc.


I think THIS is considered the newest and best version on DVD (at least it's the version I own) although I'm not sure. It's probably only a matter of time before it hits the home HD formats.


With today's FX they can properly make 3001 into a movie and I'm hoping they'll do it someday.

 

[PooperScooper]



Quote:
Originally Posted by lexa695 /forum/post/0


I was refering more that Pan Am is done, but I get your point about Nasa.

Yes, I know. Your point is valid looking at it from a post moon-landing race era. Especially after we know what's really involved in doing what Kubrick portrayed. Space travel by mere mortals is a long way off, besides the fact there's no money to be made by offering it.

larry

 

[lexa695]

2001 shouldn't be updated for one reason. At this point a visionary movie would have to be done historically. 2001 didn't exactly get a lot of things right. We don't have commuter space travel. Astronauts are not drinking meals out of those cool trays, we have no space station that even resembles what Kubrick envisioned, computers don't interact with humans as HAL did, and we still use the same boring looking space suits as the first guys to go up in a rocket. I still like the movie, just not as much as I once did.

 

[lexa695]



Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper /forum/post/0


Yes, I know. Your point is valid looking at it from a post moon-landing race era. Especially after we know what's really involved in doing what Kubrick portrayed. Space travel by mere mortals is a long way off, besides the fact there's no money to be made by offering it.

larry

Check out what Russia is doing. I think one of the Microsoft Billionaires is paying like 100 million to go up in a R ussian spaceship. Tell me there is no profit in that.

 

[Josh Z]



Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper /forum/post/0


Yes, I know. Your point is valid looking at it from a post moon-landing race era. Especially after we know what's really involved in doing what Kubrick portrayed. Space travel by mere mortals is a long way off, besides the fact there's no money to be made by offering it.

As soon as a probe discovers oil on some moon around Jupiter you can bet your ass that we'll have a manned space flight within the following 18 months.