h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

didn't get time to watch either of them last night. So that's tonight's entertainment sorted.

I *almost* envy you.

OK, latecomer warning!

2001 was long and boring, but it's also a great film. Yes, it's hard to follow - even impossible from the film alone. But that simply means that the audience has to think about what's going on. Many of my fave films - Big Sleep, Usual Suspects - are similar.

Another reason it's a classic; you will remember it forever. The docking/Blue Danube scene, the effects at the end, HAL being shut down, the monkeys at the start, the cut from the bone to the weapons satellite, the space baby ...

And a third reason - look at previous sci-fi films. No-one had made a quality sci-fi movie before.

And it's scope - the whole of human history. Even the Pope has had it listed as one of the great artworks of the 20th century, despite its Evolutionist message.

Kubrick on the whole, though, is overrated - I don't care much for Strangelove or Clockwork Orange, and I hated Shining (and all Steven King). Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket rock, as does another early one, The Killing. Yet people cite him as the greatest director ever.

I'm a Millers Crossing man.

Gif

P.S. 2001 wasn't adapted from the book, the book and film were done simultaneously. The book sequels are far inferior (they lack the scope of the first, how do you write a sequel to the whole of human history?) and the film 2010 I've seen once and then forgotten.

>No-one had made a quality sci-fi movie before.<

Metropolis.
The Shape of Things to Come.
Forbidden Planet.

That'll be three then...

You forgot Plan 9 from Outer Space!

so that's 4!

Well indeed, but i figured that went without saying...

OK, another latecomer but I've read the backlog...

Kubrick also directed "Spartacus". Frankly, after that, he could have turned into Joel Schumacher and I would still think he's a genius.

Outstanding sf films? Look no further than "Twelve Monkeys" (surprised BluesShark didn't mention it at the time...). Look at the cast list, and you'd think "Oh no, Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt, it's going to be Die Hard IV and it's going to suck". And it's probably the best hard sf movie that's ever been made, Bruce Willis is a revelation, and the plot is tied up so tight you can pluck it.

Interesting point about Kubrick's forseeing multichannels and BBC13... look at the Quatermass TV movie from 1979, and you see a dystopian 1998ish where the economy has collapsed and there's only ONE TV channel... BTV.

A lot of the special effect in 2001 were the work of Douglas Trumbull, who went on to direct "Silent Running" - another good, intelligent sf film.

It's "Klaatu Barada Nikto". Easily confirmed by looking at your Star Wars figure collection where you will find a Nikto (an orange faced guy in a blue shirt), a Barada (green face, yellow shirt) and, if you've got a COMPLETE collection, TWO Klaatus, one of them a skiff guard.[somebody called me geeky so I have a reputation to keep up ] George was a fan...

"Nobody had made a quality scifi movie before"... apart from Forbidden Planet.

2001... hmm. My personal opinion is that it's not really a film like most films are... it's more a set of images you just kind of soak up. Expecting it to "make sense" is a bit like expecting a symphony to "make sense". It's just that there are relatively few films like that around, so we don't think of films that way, generally...

H.

One sci-fi film which, despite being about as bad as they get, I remember with some fondness, was "Galaxina".

It had many buttock-clenchingly bad moments, such as the Leonard Nimoy lookalike with the drooping pointy ears ("Mr Spik") bartending at the cannibal diner , or the sect of nth-generation bikers who venerated an old Harley-D without actually knowing what it was... (Chants: Har-Lee-Dah-Vihd-San... Aoooom Aooooom Aooooom) Also, the touching and thoughtful insights into sex with an android... ("But you don't have a..." - "It's all right, they're in the catalog...")

The movie made fun of many other "genre" flicks, including "Barbarella", "Alien", and (most surprisingly) "Dark Star"...

Sadly, the lead actress (Playboy Playmate of the Year 1980, Dorothy Stratten) was killed by a shotgun blast to the cheek from her former husband before the film premiered...

Dorothy's death had a number of weird sexual details which you'd have so search for if you were so inclined, as the simple facts in the police report would be enough to fail the link as "unsuitable".

I still like the movie a lot...

OK, I didn't mean to slight the 4 sci-fi movies you mentioned (OK, I might slightly slight Plan 9 ). Each of them has a central idea that is novel or intriguing, and each of them is a good sci-fi movie, though a little clunky and dated now.

But 2001 went a step beyond that. It was, as has been mentioned, almost an art-house movie. The SFX were little short of perfect, the acting (though understated) is also good, wihtout a trace of ham, and the script likewise is hyperbole-free. All this was pretty much unique for a sci-fi movie at the time.

2001 wasn't just good for a sci-fi movie. 2001 was a good movie, full stop.

Gif

PS I read the backlog too! And I preferred Brazil to 12 Monkeys, though only narrowly.

I watched Brazil once after watching 12 monkeys and am still undecided about it. I shall have to revisit it sometime soon.

Oh and you were right 'The man who wasn't there' was very good and 'The Others' - wow - wipes the floor with sixth sense.

2001: A Space Odyssey is a landmark, science fiction classic, an epic film containing more spectacular imagery than verbal dialogue. It is a profound, visionary and astounding film (a mysterious Rorschach film-blot) and a tremendous visual experience. Viewers are left to experience the non-verbal vastness of the film, and to subjectively reach into their own subconscious to speculate about its meaning.

The genius is not in how much Stanley Kubrick does in '2001: A Space Odyssey', but in how little. This is the work of an artist so sublimely confident that he doesn't include a single shot simply to keep our attention. He reduces each scene to its essence, and leaves it on screen long enough for us to contemplate it, to inhabit it in our imaginations. Alone among science-fiction movies, '2001' is not concerned with thrilling us, but with inspiring our awe.

I've banged on about 12 Monkeys enough in other threads that I might as well change my name to '1 of the 12 Monkeys', to be honest.
Anybody who seriously thinks Metropolis is 'clunky' and merely an interesting concept has no idea how films are made. Nuff said.

Which would make me "2 of the 12 monkeys"!

Perhaps we should start a club. Limited membership might be a problem... but hey, who says you can't be "42 of the 12 monkeys"?



H.

Why not start out as the 42 Monkeys? I'd be up for being "3 of 42"...

The only problem I have with 2001 is the last time I attempted to watch it I was much to young to remember much more than Huey Duey and Luey those robots (please tell me I got the right film - it's a good 13 (or 15?) years at least since I even saw clips of it) although I vaguely remember the docking sequence and Hal's voice has stayed with me.

I remember it scared me too - but I wasn't much of a task considering I was probably only about ten. (My Dad got me into scifi stuff early...cheers Dad)

Sorry to be the one to break it to you NickyX, but you have actually got the wrong film. Huey, Dewey and Looie were in the movie "Silent Running", with Bruce Dern, directed by Doug Trumbull. Trumbull devised the "slitscan" technique for the last bit of 2001, so there IS a connection.

I know what you mean about HAL's voice though. It amazes me that he hasn't done more work in cinema, although perhaps it shouldn't, since he is so strongly identified with HAL

H.

I've mentioned it on the 'Films they shouldn't remake" thread, but I believe Trumbull's Silent Running is in the pipeline.
The b******s.

Well said, Researcher 195959! I still feel most people who diss 2001 really need to watch it again and take everyone's positive comments on board. Kubrick was a genius - in most of his films he never concentrated on shots just to get people's attention. He didn't need to - I know someone's gonna mention Spartacus, but please remember he was only a director 'for hire' on that film, and Kirk Douglas was the one in charge. Although I like the film, I don't see it as a 'true' Kubrick film, because of the fact you only know he directed it because his name appears in the credits.

He may only have been a director for hire, but it is still an undisputed classic.

Barry Lyndon was on Sky the other day.

Missed it.