2001 a space odyssey is like that. Visually beautiful, even today, but almost no dialogue, and absolutely nothing is explained to the viewer.
One of the most interesting parts of the book was the reasons behind the AI, HAL, going off the rails, essentially he was an AI programmed to be honest and upfront, who was forced to lie, and was by far the most interesting character in the book.
In the original story, the monolith was a glowing diamond. The effects people couldn’t get it right, so they put a black rectangle on all the storyboards to indicate that they’d come up with a replacement eventually.
Sone day someone looks at the rectangle and says that it would look good. The build one and hell yes, ti looks great.
Movie comes out and all the critics and fans try to figure out what the monolith represents. Is it the Bible? A tombstone? What???
Years later, the original writer, Arthur Clarke, is doing a Q+A and some snotnosed punk stands up and tells Clarke that he’s figured it out.
The monolith is in the ratio 1 : 4 : 9, the squares of the first three numbers.
Worth mentioning that the book and movie were written at the same time and influenced each other.
Originally, Kubrick and Clarke had planned to develop a 2001 novel first, free of the constraints of film, and then write the screenplay. They planned the writing credits to be “Screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, based on a novel by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick” to reflect their preeminence in their respective fields. In practice, the screenplay developed in parallel with the novel, with only some elements being common to both. Kubrick originally planned a novel, first, with a film adapted from it. They also decided to release the same story as a novel.
I mentioned this in another comment below about Citizen Kane, but a big reason these hugely known “great” movies don’t standup today is explained in the TV Tropes page about why Seinfeld is Unfunny - basically that so many pieces of art were so revolutionary at the time, they they have been endless copied and reiterated over and over, so that modern audiences seeing the original piece of art don’t see it as anything special.
2001 A Space Odyssey was specially called out as an example:
2001: A Space Odyssey: Similar to Jaws 1, the so awesome, but now sadly so clichéd uses of “Also sprach Zarathustra”.
One would be hard-pressed to find a scene from any Stanley Kubrick film that hasn’t been parodied/homaged to death.
The famous “Star Gate” sequence, in which brilliant colors flash past the screen as the main character travels deep into space, required some extremely tricky cinematography and caused jaws to drop when the film was released in 1968. Thanks to the incredible advances in special effects since then, modern audiences often find the scene ordinary.
Other purely FX scenes, like the docking sequence early in the film, had audiences riveted. By today’s standards, they’re downright boring.
The star gate scene has essentially transcended parody and basically become visual language for someone transcending reality. I wonder if I can transcends into this post a fourth time?
I agree, and I’m usually good at appreciating movies in their original context. But some of these movies have, maybe inherently or due to the era, serious pacing issues. Watching a ship move across the screen for five minutes just isn’t that thrilling.
We must have seen two different movies. Boring is the last thing I would call it. But to be fair I haven’t seen it in decades, and I could see how it would be boring if you were raised on Star Wars.
2001 a space odyssey is like that. Visually beautiful, even today, but almost no dialogue, and absolutely nothing is explained to the viewer.
One of the most interesting parts of the book was the reasons behind the AI, HAL, going off the rails, essentially he was an AI programmed to be honest and upfront, who was forced to lie, and was by far the most interesting character in the book.
None of this made it into the movie.
But I love this story…
In the original story, the monolith was a glowing diamond. The effects people couldn’t get it right, so they put a black rectangle on all the storyboards to indicate that they’d come up with a replacement eventually.
Sone day someone looks at the rectangle and says that it would look good. The build one and hell yes, ti looks great.
Movie comes out and all the critics and fans try to figure out what the monolith represents. Is it the Bible? A tombstone? What???
Years later, the original writer, Arthur Clarke, is doing a Q+A and some snotnosed punk stands up and tells Clarke that he’s figured it out.
The monolith is in the ratio 1 : 4 : 9, the squares of the first three numbers.
Clarke loves it, and puts it in the next book.
Worth mentioning that the book and movie were written at the same time and influenced each other.
https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-making-of-2001-a-space-odyssey-jay-cocks/de3b7dea4dff974f
Nonfiction book, The Making of 2001.
If you’re interested in film making, or just exploring the creative process, this is a good read.
There’s a cute line near the end.
The editor asks a proofreader if they’d already seen the movie.
“Well, I thought I had.”
Sounds interesting, thank you.
I mentioned this in another comment below about Citizen Kane, but a big reason these hugely known “great” movies don’t standup today is explained in the TV Tropes page about why Seinfeld is Unfunny - basically that so many pieces of art were so revolutionary at the time, they they have been endless copied and reiterated over and over, so that modern audiences seeing the original piece of art don’t see it as anything special.
2001 A Space Odyssey was specially called out as an example:
The star gate scene has essentially transcended parody and basically become visual language for someone transcending reality. I wonder if I can transcends into this post a fourth time?
I agree, and I’m usually good at appreciating movies in their original context. But some of these movies have, maybe inherently or due to the era, serious pacing issues. Watching a ship move across the screen for five minutes just isn’t that thrilling.
I loved that movie but I don’t fault people for not feeling the same.
It’s a contemplative film. If you don’t like to contemplate and muse, it’s likely not a film for you.
A lot of people hate being contemplative, they find it painful.
If you think 2001 is contemplative watch solaris the 1970s one in Russian…
i have. multiple times. love it.
Honestly, Arthur C. Clarke didn’t seem particularly interested in any of his human character in any book I’ve read. They’re just a means to an end.
I felt like reading the book took less time than watching the movie; it was so slow.
We must have seen two different movies. Boring is the last thing I would call it. But to be fair I haven’t seen it in decades, and I could see how it would be boring if you were raised on Star Wars.