I recently picked up this dvd for my budding video collection and after not having seen this film for many years. My recollections of the film were a bit vague and I looked forward to reacquainting myself with it. My recollections were also from the perspective of a less patient and somewhat less perceptive and introspective individual when I was some twenty years younger.

In its day 2001 was quite a visual spectacle considering what else was then available. Today, after nearly forty years, it has to be said that it is still visually impressive. Today we’re accustomed to the do-it-all resource of cgi to create fantastic imagery, but way back then everything had to be done physically and/or through photographic trickery. And even now 2001 has very little to criticize. In fact I can’t think of one thing visually wrong with this film. And it still presents us with a rather credible speculation of what relatively near future space tech and science could look like, at least conceptually if not in detail. Granted it has long been proven extremely optimistic in terms of what has actually unfolded historically in the real world, but it didn’t seem so far fetched in the heady days of 1968 when the U.S. space program was at full steam and public support and optimism was high. Yet even taking the reality of the past forty years into consideration 2001 still looks reasonable credible in terms of what later generations conceivable could see within the next fifty to one hundred years. And so in terms of visual presentation and execution I still give this film full marks.

This film’s story unfolds better than I remember it even taking into account that film makers then weren’t so concerned about pacing as they are today. When I was younger I recall this film as being painfully slow, and while I get more out of the film today I have to say that it’s still slow. The story in itself doesn’t strike me as particularly complex, not a lot really happens plot wise and it takes a very measured pace to lay it all out. Perhaps I’m just not deep enough, but it sometimes seems as if the existing story is just enough to hang a sequence of beautifully rendered images along it.

I couldn’t help but compare 2001 with another film that is often referred to in comparisons: ST-TMP, Frankly I think the similarities between the two films are somewhat exaggerated. I don’t believe TMP’s director Robert Wise was deliberately trying to invoke similarities, direct or not, with 2001. I think more likely any similarities are mostly coincidental. But I would like to comment on the two films in comparison to each other.

2001 is somewhat of a cold film emotionally. The characters are competently portrayed, but we get very little warmth of character from any of them. The characters are essentially just bare bones tools to further the story. Even when we watch HAL kill off the hibernating scientists and then astronaut Frank Poole we don’t feel any real measure of empathy or concern. In contrast we go into ST-TMP with a strong emotional connection to the characters from three years of the original Star Trek series and ten years of endless syndicated reruns. We have years of familiarity with the characters. And so whatever unfolds in ST-TMP we’re already predisposed to care about what happens to the characters. That the characters seemed somewhat not themselves at the beginning of the movie actually bothers us until we realize that (story wise) they've been apart for some time and are basically re-accustoming themselves with each other. And by the end of the film they’re basically back to their familiar selves. In terms of characterization ST-TMP has it all over 2001 and in getting us to care about what happens and not just in a clinical intellectual way. ST-TMP has sometimes been called a sterile film, but it’s downright warm and cuddly compared to 2001.

Story wise I think the two are essentially a draw as both films don’t have very complex stories to tell. But in the end I still have to give the nod to ST-TMP. TMP may seem leisurely paced compared to what we’re more accustomed to today, but it practically flies compared to 2001. And Wise’s ST-TMP, for all its impressive visuals, is far less artsy than Kubrick’s 2001. Although I get what 2001 seems to be saying it is very metaphorical in how it says it. And I can see how many people easily might not get the film the first time (or two) around. I certainly didn’t, and if I hadn’t read the novel before seeing the film so many years ago I’d have been lost too.

Both films are visually spectacular—2001 for depicting a credible near future and ST-TMP for portraying a rather credible far future. Once again, though, it is the familiarity with Gene Roddenberry’s universe and the warmth of its characters that make that world seem more exciting and welcoming.

In the end I’m still very impressed with 2001, more so than before. But I’m impressed mostly in a clinical and intellectual way. It remains a significant benchmark that influenced how science fiction could be crafted in a visual medium. Emotionally, though, the film still does little for me. And I’m a little disappointed with that.

I can't say that I would have put 2001 and ST:TMP together in a critique. Though you imply that others have previously done so, it's the first I've heard of it. For myself, I would not ever put these movies on the same level to compare and contrast. Where 2001 feels like a fully realized film (because it is), ST:TMP feels a bit more like an unfinished sketch (because, after all, it is). I wouldn't even think to compare the work of Wise and Kubrick - apples & oranges, IMHO.

2001 is an original work about religion (or the lack thereof) that happens to look like a sci-fi film; while ST:TMP is a sci-fi movie about some stuff thats kinda like searching for God and is mainly derived from a 1960's episodic TV show based loosely on concepts borrowed from Forbidden Planet, another 60's sci-fi movie. Not trying to be unkind, I just don't think they're at all cousins.

My $0.02

John O.

2001 is an original work about religion (or the lack thereof) that happens to look like a sci-fi film

Arthur Clarke famously teased Kubrick for having conned MGM into funding "the world's first ten million dollar religious film." I suppose it depends on one's definition of religion. At any rate, I for one find 2001 to be a deeply emotional movie. Also a very hopeful one.

Technical and historical glitches notwithstanding, 2001 still holds up as a work of art in 2007.

Technical and historical glitches notwithstanding, 2001 still holds up as a work of art in 2007.

You can say that again. I have probably watched this movie at least 40 times - in all it's archival iterations. My original viewing was at the age of 11 in a 70mm Cinerama theater in New York City. I cannot adequately describe how strong an impact that viewing had on me. I would say that it actually changed my life. Since then I have watched 35mm prints in theaters, network broadcasts on rabbit-eared TVs, VHS versions, and Standard Definitiion DVDs. About 3 months ago I watched an absolute pristine print in true High Definition on HDNet. Doing so was a religious experience. Almost like the first time.

I would say that it actually changed my life.

You wouldn't be the first. Aside from Star Wars and the original King Kong I can't think of another film that's launched as many careers as 2001 has.

Top Gun maybe...

Yeah, that film was made when NASA had lots of cash and big dreams. At first, they wanted to built a space station (former AVRO engineer Jim Chamberlin wanted to built one as seen in 2001 with artificial gravity but later on dropped the artificial gravity 'cause it was decided as non-essential) to help conquer the moon. But they decided to skip building the station and go directly to the moon because of the USSR pressure. Then NASA had a plan to built a moonbase to help going to Mars before 1980. They were really on a roll after the historical first lunar landing. But the costly Vietnam war and social problems put an end to that fantastic era. For those of you (like me) that love historical facts and facination about the Race to the moon should read ''Arrows to the moon''. I've learned fascinating stuff other then the biggest canadian scandal that was the termination of the Arrow in 1959.

From all the sci-fi movies, all the space filming in that movie are my favorites. The ships don't have an super-futurist look like in ST, they look like something that can really be built. Plus the addition of the music makes the ships dance like in a ballet. As for the end of the movie, well the next time I'll watch it, I'll try to smoke something before to try to understand it. LOL. And the fact that Kubrick never explained his movie, doesn't help us. Lucky some people gives us an explanation (one of many) at
http://www.kubrick2001.com/ (http://www.kubrick2001.com/)

Steph

I can't say that I would have put 2001 and ST:TMP together in a critique. Though you imply that others have previously done so, it's the first I've heard of it. For myself, I would not ever put these movies on the same level to compare and contrast.

I think any science fiction movie is going to lose in a critique in comparison to 2001, at least with me.

2001 is somewhat of a cold film emotionally. The characters are competently portrayed, but we get very little warmth of character from any of them. The characters are essentially just bare bones tools to further the story. Even when we watch HAL kill off the hibernating scientists and then astronaut Frank Poole we don’t feel any real measure of empathy or concern.


The choice to make the Hal 9000 computer the most "human" character in the film was a deliberate one.

ST:TMP didn't work for me, I saw it the night it opened theatrically and found it a disapointment. The revised version didn't work much for me either. In comparison, 2001 works on every level imho.

Whew, I don't feel like such a nerd now. I only saw 2001 in the theaters 33 times! Many of those were in Cinerama, at the Uptown Theatre in Washington DC, sitting front row center. It was, is, and always will be MY movie.

I still think it was the seminal experience in my youth. Only Close Encounters came close in terms of really making me feel that there was something else out there that we are connected to.

I just got a 42" plasma TV for Christmas, and I was deeply disappointed when I put 2001 into my DVD and took it for a test drive. Perhaps it's the bad DVD transfer and a still-new TV, but it sure didn't handle all the deep blacks very well. I haven't tried it again since I turned down the contrast setting.

Regardless of my age, I'm still a fan of a lot of old-school films and TV shows TMP (Particularly the director's edition) and 2001 are both fantastic films in my opinion.

I just got a 42" plasma TV for Christmas, and I was deeply disappointed when I put 2001 into my DVD and took it for a test drive. Perhaps it's the bad DVD transfer and a still-new TV, but it sure didn't handle all the deep blacks very well. I haven't tried it again since I turned down the contrast setting.

Since HDNet recently aired a pristine HD version of the film, I can only assume that a Hi-Def DVD issue is coming very soon. I find the anamorphic SD DVD disappointing on my HD monitor too. Fortunately, I DVR'd HDNet's version and have it saved and locked.

One of the many things I love about 2001 is that Kubrick seemed to be the first filmaker to acknowledge that there is direct sunlight in outer space. Bright sunlight. And deep shadows.

Another thing that I love is the fact that all of the computer screen read-outs in the movie were actually rear-projected 16 mm film strips of hand-rendered, frame-by-frame cell animation. All of them. And each one of those 16 mm projectors had to be re-threaded every time Kubrick did another take. And Kubrick was known for doing lots of takes.

The sterile emotionlessness of the humans in 2001 was quite intentional.

I still felt an emotional loss when Poole was killed by HAL. HDNET'S HD version is amazing.

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=36507&stc=1[/IMG-LEFT]

. . . As for the end of the movie, well the next time I'll watch it, I'll try to smoke something before to try to understand it. LOL.

It's hardly a coincidence that a 2001 poster sported this tagline!


. . . all of the computer screen read-outs in the movie were actually rear-projected 16 mm film strips of hand-rendered, frame-by-frame cell animation. [i]All of them.Any sci-fi geek worthy of the name should have this downloadable HAL 9000 screensaver on his computer. HAL 9000 Screensaver (http://www.mental-pictures.com/hal9000/)

It's a re-creation of all those little displays on the monitor screens on the Discovery set. (Those readouts are all totally meaningless, BTW — but they look cool!)

Any sci-fi geek worthy of the name should have this downloadable HAL 9000 screensaver on his computer.

I'm a sci f geek, but no way in heck am I ever changing my hot babes slideshow screensaver for fake computer readouts! :lol:

I have both. I switch from the hot babes slideshow to the HAL 9000 screensaver when I have visitors. Better they should think I'm a geek than a Dirty Old Man! :devil:

When I watch the film I'm thinking:
- was the alien monolith simply a passive probe of some kind dispatched to Earth to simply observe life and conditions there or was it supposed to instill the earliest seeds of intelligence in one of Esrth's early primates?
- I'm pretty sure the monolith (or at least another monolith) was always meant to be found on the Moon, and if found it would signal that an intelligent life form from Earth had finally evolved sufficiently to the early stages of spaceflight. And little doubt that we would track the monolith's signal and attempt to trace it to its intended destination.
- I'm not sure what the light show Bowman witnessed/experienced was or was meant to represent. It could be interpreted as some form of wormhole travel I suppose.
- Bowman's apparent aging within the confines of a familiar environment could be a metaphor for humanity's entire previous existence within the confines of our planet. And the star child could represent our emergence as starborne species within the galactic community.

Of course thats just what I seemed to get out of it.

My take is that the monoliths were "seeded" to promote a forced jump in evolution when intelligent (or proto-intelligent) life reached certain stages.

For anyone who has seen the film but hasn't read Clarke's novel, pick it up. It's an interesting (and slightly different) take on the same material.

The monolith on earth was essentially a "teaching machine", left there to kickstart the apes into using tools...hence the evolutionary jump-cut from bone to spaceship.
The one on the moon was an alarm which triggered when we were advanced enough to find it...it also acted as bait to push us into following the signal.
The trip through the stargate was probably better handled in the novel,which incidentally was written after the film was completed,where Clarke describes scenes which were probably too expensive or simply impossible to film at the time. The lightshow was Kubrick's take on Bowman being shown things beyond human comprehension.
The room at the end is a construct along the lines of the holodeck on Star Trek which is built to make Bowman feel at home,and where he lives out his life,possibly artificially accelerated, until he's ready to make the next evolutionary leap and be reborn as the starchild.
Anyone who hasn't read the book should do so as it adds rather than detracts from the film.
Another fascinating insight is The Lost Worlds of 2001 by Arthur C Clarke which details the alternate endings that were considered for the film.
The sequel books 2010, 2061 and 3001 are also excellent, particularly 2010 which far outstrips the movie version, entertaining though the movie is.
Anyone interested in the movie background and SFX should pick up Filming The Future by Piers Bizony.

Great thread, Warped9.

I guess I have to turn in my geek card: I only saw 2001 in the theater once. But it was in Cinerama during the premier (does that give me brag rights?).

Great summary, Miniature Son (are you Mini-Me in disguise?). I gobbled up "lost worlds" and anything else I could get including the novel version. Clarke's "The Sentinel", the short story 2001 is based on, is required reading.

What's 'ST:TMP'? I can guess the 'ST', but 'TMP'?!

the Motion picture....

The monolith on earth was essentially a "teaching machine", left there to kickstart the apes into using tools...hence the evolutionary jump-cut from bone to spaceship.
The one on the moon was an alarm which triggered when we were advanced enough to find it...it also acted as bait to push us into following the signal.
The trip through the stargate was probably better handled in the novel,which incidentally was written after the film was completed,where Clarke describes scenes which were probably too expensive or simply impossible to film at the time. The lightshow was Kubrick's take on Bowman being shown things beyond human comprehension.
The room at the end is a construct along the lines of the holodeck on Star Trek which is built to make Bowman feel at home,and where he lives out his life,possibly artificially accelerated, until he's ready to make the next evolutionary leap and be reborn as the starchild.
Anyone who hasn't read the book should do so as it adds rather than detracts from the film.
Another fascinating insight is The Lost Worlds of 2001 by Arthur C Clarke which details the alternate endings that were considered for the film.
The sequel books 2010, 2061 and 3001 are also excellent, particularly 2010 which far outstrips the movie version, entertaining though the movie is.
Anyone interested in the movie background and SFX should pick up Filming The Future by Piers Bizony.

It was NOT. Clarke and Kubrick worked up the concept from Clarke's short story "The Sentinel" and they worked on the screenplay and novel concurrently, trading ideas back and forth. The novel was supposed to be released first, but Kubrick had to approve it (as did Clarke on the film), and Kubrick held up his approval just long enough to make sure the novel would be released a few days after the film premiere. :drunk:

the Motion picture....

D'oh! I knew that. Yup back in the 70's when movies were called 'Motion Pictures'.

The trip through the stargate was probably better handled in the novel,which incidentally was written after the film was completed,where Clarke describes scenes which were probably too expensive or simply impossible to film at the time.

Uh... no.

It was never Kubrick's intention to spell out his Ultimate Trip, but rather to tell the story via abstract graphics and visuals.

Clarke the novelist, working in a somewhat less visual medium, felt obliged to explain things, which is one of the reasons the film has aged better than the book.

OKay since this is a modeling board isn't anyone going to bring up the moonbus?

There was a time on the PL board when the 2001 moonbus was the holy grail of wanted retro releases, new tools, etc. I remember CultTV being disappointed that this was the best we could come up with on a thread begging Tom and PL for our most wanted kit.

Having said that, I too saw the 70mm release, at the Cineramadome in L.A. I've seen TV versions, VHS and DVD in home theater surround.

I still get chills from this movie. In some ways, for me it's the scariest movie ever.

Speaking of the moonbus, I just read an interview with Brian Johnson while searching for Ultraprobe stuff. He worked on 2001 and didn't think the moonbus was a very good design for a 'moon truck', so he began doodling. A few years later when he began work on 1999 he had the Eagle drawn out.
They do have similarities. A rounded nose with 2 windows, four legs, and a squarish cargo area.

I have an Aurora Moonbus.

I have an Aurora Moonbus.

Why you! Sneakin' up on me eh? Spread out! http://www.threestooges.com/bios/images/photo_head_mhoward.jpg

Hmmm.... A wise guy , eh? Why I oughta!!!!

I have an MiM Moonbus.:)

John O.

OKay since this is a modeling board isn't anyone going to bring up the moonbus?
Yeah, there were great models in this movie. I knew someone way back when who had a Moonbus model and I desperately wanted one myself. If I could find some 2001 kits again reasonably priced I'd grab them.

BTW does anyone recall what kits were made besides the Moonbus and the PanAm Orion orbiter?

Mainstream or Garage? Captain Cardboard has numerous 2001 kits.

EVA Pod
Aires 1-B
Discovery

http://p197.ezboard.com/batomiccity

And he keeps promising a Moon Bus, but NOOOOOOooo....

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/2001/ms_bowman_HALfront.jpghttp://i5.ebayimg.com/07/i/000/85/25/5a0b_1_b.JPG

Coupl'a kits.

Oh, wow...where did the computer bay kit come from?

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/2001/ms_bowman.htm


Here's another: http://www.squaremodels.netfirms.com/2001d.htm

http://www.squaremodels.netfirms.com/images/dio7a.jpg

and another (linked in the first article above).

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/2001/ms_mono_astroside_lil.jpg

2001 and Planet of the Apes are the movies that influenced me most as a preteen!

I have always had a passing interest in Star Trek, in all its incarnations but never could get past a certain "goofy" factor (TOS) I never could really explain. I think it was a combination of the paper mache' sets and Shatner's acting method.

Zorro, awsome pics! Thanks for sharing! I had not seen a couple of these.

My Caprain Cardboard/Atomic City pod:
http://www.inpayne.com/models/2001pod1.html

My MiM Moon Bus:
http://www.inpayne.com/models/2001moonbus1.html

My 1975 Aurora Orion:
http://www.inpayne.com/models/2001orion.html

I have more on the "to build" pile - Wilco's "pod resuce" kit and Orion, Stargazer's two Orion kits (movie standard, and conjectural cargo model), and Atomic City's Dave Bowman figure model. Oh, and I recently dicsovered I have an old Lunar Models HAL 9000 computer eyes vac kit with working LED eye :lol:

My Caprain Cardboard/Atomic City pod:
http://www.inpayne.com/models/2001pod1.html

My MiM Moon Bus:
http://www.inpayne.com/models/2001moonbus1.html

My 1975 Aurora Orion:
http://www.inpayne.com/models/2001orion.html

I have more on the "to build" pile - Wilco's "pod resuce" kit and Orion, Stargazer's two Orion kits (movie standard, and conjectural cargo model), and Atomic City's Dave Bowman figure model. Oh, and I recently dicsovered I have an old Lunar Models HAL 9000 computer eyes vac kit with working LED eye :lol:

John...feel free to send me the HAL eye kit... :tongue:

Does anyone know why, when Aurora re-released the Orion and a lot of their other sci-fi stuff (Seaview, Flying Sub, Spindrift) in 1975, they didn’t also re-release the Moonbus?

Supposedly it never sold that well. It was on the cover of their catalog when it first came out, but after the first run it was never reissued.

JP, that's a nice moonbus kit, but where are their helmets?

Here's something I have always wondered about: Kubrick famously removed about 16-18 minutes of 2001 after the premier. Some of the publicity shots for the movie were from that excised footage - there was one I have frequently seen of Dave removing the AE-35 unit from a storage locker prior to the first EVA. Has any of that excised footage ever been found or published? I would love to see it even if it isn't exciting. I'm surprised it has not shown up on the DVDs.

Brian Johnson said that all the stuff was in a commercial storage locker, MGM quit paying, and Kubrick was busy with A Clockwork Orange, so it all got trashed.

It's amazing how well the models and sets from this film still hold up these days against recent productions. I can hardly wait for the HD DVD release so I can retire my old, non anamorphic DVD. I'm really curious to see how much they'll improve the sound with a new or at least better mix. At one point, I actually had really detailed blueprints of the Discovery-long gone now though. There's a lot of weird but cool things about that ship-like how the pilot seats are facing down, so to look forward you actually have to look above you at an angle.

I can't quite put my finger on why, but for some reason the lack of 'warmth' in the characters fits this movie. It almost makes them seem like 'professional' calm and well trained astronauts. I hope when they release the HD version (which IS listed, but no actual street date yet) that they include quite a bit of behind the scenes material, although it probably wasn't documented anywhere near as well as current productions where extras are now taken into account. I used to buy a lot of the Cinefex magazines. Not much need to these days.

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/2001/ms_bowman.htm


Here's another: http://www.squaremodels.netfirms.com/2001d.htm

http://www.squaremodels.netfirms.com/images/dio7a.jpg

and another (linked in the first article above).

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/2001/ms_mono_astroside_lil.jpg
:thumbsup: Awesome.

With 2001, Planet Of The Apes and the '67/'68 season of Star Trek 1968 was a great year for science fiction.

With 2001, Planet Of The Apes and the '67/'68 season of Star Trek 1968 was a great year for science fiction.

Absolutely! But you omitted another bona fide classic from that halcyon year.:devil:


http://www.wpfs.org/moviepix/GreenSlime.jpg

:thumbsup: Awesome.

With 2001, Planet Of The Apes and the '67/'68 season of Star Trek 1968 was a great year for science fiction.

Didn't Barbarella come out that year, too?

And Marooned, which won best oscar for special effects, and was never seen again.

The Moonbus is on my ''must have'' kit list. Maybe is was on PL future release list (well naturally if they would have made a good deal to Kubrick's family). I don't know why exactly I like it, maybe because it's a hard to find kit or maybe it's like the S99 Eagle, it's a ship that 2007 humans could built (no photon torpedoes, warp engines, no unreliable force feilds,.. you get the picture...). Thanks JP for sharing your nice Moonbus pictures with us, :) .

And Marooned, which won best oscar for special effects, and was never seen again.

Stanley Kubrick won the SFX Oscar in 1968 for 2001 ( the only Oscar he ever won).

Marooned was released in November 1969.
"Marooned" Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marooned_(film))