Love this Shot
You know, many people deride 2001 as pretentious crap. But it was so cutting edge when it came out and it still remains one of the best SF movies ever made. And also the most scientifically accurate. I remember when I saw the film as an 11 year old kid. I was already into Science Fiction even then, but it really changed my life. I had been a fan of Star Trek, but when I saw the sets in 2001 Star Trek never looked the same. It seemed cheesy, when it had once looked so futuristic.
I knew a guy who worked as a prop builder and he said the sets in 2001 were so realistic if you looked at any prop they looked real up close. Most props look fake when you look at them in real life, but Kubrick was a stickler for details and realism.
I still think 2001 IS kind of pretentious. Accurate? Yeah, by late 1960s standards, but now we know Jupiter doesn’t look anything like they supposed it did in the late 1960s. The space probe and telescope technology back then just didn’t allow high-enough resolution photography to capture the planet as it really is.
As much as I appreciate the attention to scientific accuracy, I think 2001 actually demonstrates some of the pitfalls of dogged accuracy. The lack of sound in that film is just maddening. I think I’ll take some rocket sounds in space just to break up the monotony of silence or heavy breathing and space suit pressurization. There is something to be said for dramatic license.
As for the Star Trek sets, they’re more a victim of tight budgets and 1960s TV set construction methods. The basic design logic still holds up well and the refit Enterprise (1979 movie) —an updated version of the original design—still has some of the best-looking sets built for any fictional ship. (Granted, these sets were demolished after Star Trek: Voyager finished its run, but you get my meaning.) As far as the actual shooting minatures go, I’d say the ‘79 Star Trek Enterprise still blows away any ship design from Star Wars, later Trek films and TV series, or 2001 for that matter. For a fictional ship, it just LOOKS right and photographs well from most angles. It’s also amazingly detailed to the point that they could get the cameras to within a 1/4 inch of it and it still looked real!
Posted by on 05/18 at 09:30 PMI really liked the silence of space (which Kubrick often filled, to good effect, with clever choices of music). It created a unique tension, I think. For example, the contrast between the nerve-wracking noise of the alarms before Bowman fires into the vacuum, followed by the eerie silence as he fights for life, then the slow return of sound as the air pressure rises…awesome.
Overall, I would describe the film as a flawed masterpiece. When I watched it again recently after getting the Blu-Ray, two things stood out: First, the dialog is almost unbelievably bland. So bland, it makes me wonder if it was deliberately so. Second, the stargate sequence would greatly benefit by being cut back by about 80% (the solarization sequences are painfully overlong).
Other than that, it’s a great film that took tremendous chances and reset the bar for all SF films that followed.
Ask yourself: does the world need a remake of 2001? No. It would be as pointless as a remake of, I dunno, Lawrence of Arabia. 2001 is sui generis.Posted by on 05/18 at 11:20 PMOff-topic (sorry Hud), but what Blu-ray player do you have, Toren? My computer has Blu-ray, but we’re looking for one to hook up to the TV.
Posted by on 05/19 at 06:30 AMI agree that the stargate scenes are way too long (they were so original at the time. I remember stoners used to go see the movie just to trip out watching it on acid).
The dialog was made intentionally bland according to something I read. I forget the reason, but I think that was a mistake,. It makes the film boring at times.
Kubrick’s films do have this weird kind of dialog pattern that was evident in 2001, but you can see it in his later films, too. People talk in this strange measured tone in some scenes.
Posted by on 05/19 at 06:58 AMA couple months ago Amazon was selling off some refurbished first-gen PlayStation 3s for cheap. I did some research and discovered their blu-ray performance was just as good as the new models, they just were missing some of the game-play bells and whistles (mostly for on-line play) that I didn’t care about. So I snagged one.
Posted by on 05/19 at 11:18 AMThanks, Toren. Consumer Reports said the PlayStation is the best. We want a read/write, but it’s still too new for CR to recommend one.
Posted by on 05/19 at 04:59 PMFirst-Gen PS3’s are generally better IF you want backwards compatibility with the PS1 and (especially) PS2 games. The first-gen PS3s are the 20GB and 60GB hard drive models sold in the US and Japan. Don’t bother getting the Japanese if you want to play American DVD games on them because the region-coding is still in effect for PS1 and PS2 games. Since Japan and the US are in the same region coding for Blu-Ray, it doesn’t affect PS3 games (which are all Blu-Ray) at all.
(The big difference between the 20GB and 60GB PS3s is the lack of wireless connectivity in the 20GB model. Otherwise, they both feature full compatibility with PS2 games. All PS3s are backwards compatible with PS1 games, but only the 20GB and 60GB models carry the PS2 hardware necessary for near-total compatibility with PS2 titles. The 80GB models are compatible through software emulation that is glitchy but better than the X360 emulation. 40GB PS3 models are PS1-compatible only.)
The main advantage of the PS3 is the upgradibility of the system BIOS/firmware. It just opens up full Blu-Ray compatibility since Blu-Ray was released before the final specs were finished. PS3 was built with this in mind and it’s very easy to upgrade the firmware.
I have to say that the PS3 is a MUCH better DVD player than the PS2 ever way and has demonstrated the ability to play “stubborn” DVDs that my standalone (and admittedly 9-year-old) DVD player chokes on. As for Blu-Rays, you really have to have an HDTV appreciate. Yes, the system is compatible with 480i TV sets via composite and S-Video hook-up but you’re really not getting the full experience with that set-up.
P.S.—I am definitely looking at importing Blu-Ray titles from Japan if and when they feature English subtitles and won’t be available in the US. Region-coding was the big reason, besides lack of English subtitles for the most part, that I never imported Japanese DVDs. Japanese home video media is horrendously overpriced but at least the B-R’s in Japan are keeping in standard pricing with DVDs unlike the situation in the US where B-Rs are typically $10-$15 more than DVDs!
Posted by on 05/19 at 08:19 PM
Next entry: Star Wars Deleted Scene
Previous entry: Taylor on Broadway
