| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 Posted - 07/25/2007 : 10:58:59
|
I'm with Cool and Sean. The ape makeup was state-of-the-art at the time and did not look phony to me, mainly because of the wonderful simian-mime artists inside, and remember: they threw in a few real apes on us too.
And the Dawn of Man sequence [is it really :40 long? Thought it was much shorter than that...I seem to recall the first line of dialogue comes at about the :40 mark] works just the way it is. The languid static shots establish a quiet Zenlike state that helps us appreciate the slowness of life and, later, the majesty of space flight. 2001 was not made for children -- though some will certainly enjoy it. |
 |
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 07/25/2007 : 11:19:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Yeah, I'm gonna have to give my full support to the monkey sequences in 2001 too. I understand that there was a sizable percentage of viewers who thought those were real monkeys.
Then Kubrick made real monkeys out of them, didn't he? 
|
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 07/25/2007 : 13:58:02
|
2001 isn't a bad movie and from a technical point of view it's an amazing achievement, but I think Peter Griffin's (Family Guy) assessment of The Godfather can actually apply very easily to 2001: "It insists upon itself."
I read the book long before I ever saw the movie, so the entire film made perfect sense to me...but I can't for the life of me figure out how ANYONE had the slightest clue what was going on half the time - especially during the last 25 minutes - when the movie first came out. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 07/25/2007 : 14:26:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
2001 isn't a bad movie and from a technical point of view it's an amazing achievement, but I think Peter Griffin's (Family Guy) assessment of The Godfather can actually apply very easily to 2001: "It insists upon itself."
Ugh, quit quoting that line! It's such an awful line! |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 07/26/2007 00:01:47 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 07/26/2007 : 01:00:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
2001 isn't a bad movie and from a technical point of view it's an amazing achievement, but I think Peter Griffin's (Family Guy) assessment of The Godfather can actually apply very easily to 2001: "It insists upon itself."
I read the book long before I ever saw the movie, so the entire film made perfect sense to me...but I can't for the life of me figure out how ANYONE had the slightest clue what was going on half the time - especially during the last 25 minutes - when the movie first came out.
Ooooo, very interesting, since the "co-writers" "wrote" both the book [pubbed AFTER the movie came out] and the movie simultaneously. I believe Clarke gets top credit on the book, and Kubrick on the screenplay. Anyhoo, you went for print long before flick, so you are trying to balance tangerines with melons. The book doesn't explain shit. Just relax and enjoy the movie... |
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 07/26/2007 : 02:13:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
I consider the Dawn of Man extended sequence to be among the most interesting, haunting, spiritual, intellectual, and poetic sequences to ever be put on film. I don't find any fault with the primate costumes and make up as they were as good as was possible in 1968 and was a hell of a lot better than 99% of primate makeup in science fiction films made before or since then. I also admire the acting! Whether or not the makeup is convincing, the acting certainly is. The actors made them look like they were instinctual beasts and when they figure out how to use tools, we understand through their expressions and body language the kind of primitive thought process they are going through; and all without a single line of dialogue. These are difficult and nuanced performances that are not often appreciated and are overshadowed by the HAL 9000 conflict later in the film.
Yep I agree with all of that.  That sequence is also unique, I don't know of anything like it in any other movie.quote:
The Dawn of Man extended sequence lasts for roughly the first 40 minutes the film, which is roughly 2 hrs and 30 min long. It is a very long sequence and has very little to do with the HAL 9000 conflict. A teacher I had in high school shows 2001 to his film appreciation class every semester, and every year he noticed that the film, and especially the Dawn of Man sequence, was putting his class of 10th-12th grade students to sleep. He said he too felt that Kubrick overindulged on the sequence, but felt it was a necessary part of the film. He decided to experiment and edited about 20 minutes out of the Dawn of Man sequence and see what happened. He told me he edited it tastefully and none of the "meaning" was missing. When I heard about this, I thought it was sacrilege, but he showed me his edited sequence side by side with Kubrick's original sequence and I had to admit that my teacher's edited version played better and managed to keep everything Kubrick's might have intended. My teacher explained that he mainly did this by several cutting 40-45 second long shots of unpopulated prarie landscapes down so that it was on screen for about 5-6 seconds.
Hmmm... Perhaps he didn't cut any of the 'essential' bits of it, but how about the effect on someone who'd never seen it before? Would it be as effective? Carlos Santana always talked about the "power of holding a note", i.e., if a note sounds good, then why not keep the note going instead of rushing into the next note and getting the musical piece over and done with as fast as possible. So if those prairie scenes look good (and I seem to recall they do) then I think I'd prefer to leave them in the movie. The whole sequence tends to instill a relaxed state, even though I know that significant things are happening.
It's possible that today's high-school students who've grown up on Playstations and high-speed CGI action scenes in their movies don't have the patience that people had 40 years ago, and expect to be fed the 'essential' material at a much higher rate, hence get bored when not much appears to be happening. In fact, if 2001 was made today, I rather doubt that the Dawn of Man scene would be 40 minutes long, it would probably be cut the way your teacher cut it.
2001 is not a movie for every occasion. I couldn't imagine wanting to watch it at school in the daytime. For me it's a lights-off, glass-of-port-in-hand, feet-up, the-whole-evening-ahead-of-me and go-to-bed-thinking-about-it kind of movie. 
I had the same initial reaction as you, Sean, before seeing the actual cut of the film. It works as a 40 minute sequence very well, so why cut it down? Then I saw his cut and I changed my mind. My teacher proved by experiment that the Dawn of Man sequence is too long and that it works better at half the length. Unfortunately, there is only one copy in existence of the shorter cut, but I am positive that anyone who saw my teacher's cut would agree that his cut works better than the original cut, not because the original cut was bad, but because it was just too long. Kubrick may have been a genius and a perfectionist, but he was also an egoist and the Dawn of Man sequence was too long. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/26/2007 : 02:29:28
|
Ah well, I'll withdraw given that I haven't seen the cut version. I'm very happy with the Kubrick version so don't feel I'm missing anything, although I admit I am curious about the cut version. I'll keep it in mind next time I watch it.
BTW, name one movie maker who isn't an egotist.  |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 07/26/2007 : 06:24:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
BTW, name one movie maker who isn't an egotist.
I can name several wonderful, warm, and compassionate people I have worked with in the film and television industry, but you probably wouldn't recognize their names and none of them are as powerful, successful, or brilliant as Kubrick was. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 07/26/2007 : 08:01:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
BTW, name one movie maker who isn't an egotist.
Alan Smithee?
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/26/2007 : 10:11:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
BTW, name one movie maker who isn't an egotist.
Alan Smithee?
You mean the guy who wrote this? 
BTW, GHcool, I'm sure most movie-makers think their projects are worthwhile (I'd call that 'ego') or they wouldn't bother embarking on a mammoth project such as a movie. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. I.e, something like:-
a) Idea is generated,
b) Thinks it's good
b) Thinks others might like it
c) Makes a movie out of it
could be called egotistical. Although I suppose what we're talking about here when people use the term "egotistical" is overinflated egos that are obvious to everyone, e.g., Costner in The Postman or Dances with Wolves etc. But I've never thought that Kubrick's ego stood out in any of his movies, not even in 2001.
Many thought that LOTR:ROTK was too long at 3:20. I'm one of those who thought that the Extended Cut at 4:15 was too short; I'd like to have seen the rest of the story included. So you won't get me contemplating the Dawn of Man as being too long or the result of an overinflated ego. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 07/26/2007 : 11:03:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Many thought that LOTR:ROTK was too long at 3:20.
Yeah, exactly 200 minutes too long. 
Goodbye.
Farewell.
Seeya.
Toodle-loo.
Adios.
I'm going now.
Hasta Luego.
Adieu.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/26/2007 : 13:28:40
|
| I think I'll take the Randall-quoting-Duke-Ellington approach..."If you don't know by now, you never will..." |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 07/26/2007 : 14:03:45
|
I never will, and as far as that kind of rubbish is concerned, I never want to.
Don't go confusing an enigmatic but artistically aspirational film such as 2001 with the CGI poo that is LOTR.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 07/26/2007 : 17:38:59
|
| This Dawn of Man timing has been bugging me ever since I read it, so I went back and looked. Cool, from the MGM logo to the famous bone-throw jump cut is just shy of :20. The first line of dialogue -- "Here you are, sir" -- occurs at 25:44. You sure your prof cut the Dawn down to :20? |
|
|
|
redPen
"Because I said so!"
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 05:52:53
|
Movies Worthy Of Being Walked Out On
Quest for Fire
Affliction
Jurassic Park II (didn't dare see III)
Meet Joe Black
Prizzi's Honor
Terms of Endearment (Nicholson, MacLaine, Winger -- an overrated trifecta!)
also:
- anything with Jack Black
- any zombie film
- any Merchant Ivory yawnfest
- any Tom Cruise film after Interview with a Vampire |
Edited by - redPen on 07/27/2007 05:54:34 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
WORST FILMS EVER
