World War III Casualties In "Star Trek: First Contact"
Josh Ehrnwald
To clear a few things up regarding this question:
1. The figure of 600 million dead and all major cities destroyed comes
from the nuclear holocaust in the 2050's, *NOT* the Eugenics Wars that
occurred in the 1990's.
2. The count of 37 million dead that was given in TOS ("Bread and Circuses")
was, we now know, referring to the Eugenics Wars.
There are a few nits to pick here and there, however:
3. In "Space Seed", Spock stated that the Eugenics Wars that Khan and his
followers were involved in "was the last of your so-called 'World Wars'."
This is definitely a discrepancy when given the fact that we now know that
there was a World War III in the mid-21st Century (something that has been
known since 1987, when "Farpoint" premiered) that was much more devastating
to mankind. Which leads me to the next wee little nit--
4. If, as Q stated in "Farpoint", the date of 2079 is correct, then _why_
hadn't society gotten past the very "Mad Max-ian" appearance that was depic-
-ted in the courtroom sequences of the episode? That date is a good fourteen
years PAST the point of 2063 visited in the movie, and by that time, with
Zefram Cochrane's contact with alien civilizations that brought help to
Earth, not to MENTION the first steps toward the founding of the Federation,
_why_ are there still those Fourth World Mercenary Soldiers (y'know, the
guys with the machine guns on their fists) and a depiction of a bloodthirsty
society still present (especially given Q's statements and actions concerning
the lack of rights for the accused and so forth)?
Just some food for your thoughts...
Robert D. Clark
In article <57hllt$k...@lana.zippo.com>, Josh Ehrnwald
<jjeh...@dacc.cc.il.us> wrote:
Why?
Because the Kontinuity Kops missed a few.
This is FICTION, people...
If you're the kind of person whose suspension of disbelief is THAT easily
pricked you have no business reading or watching anything remotely
entertainment oriented.
I don't necessarily mean you, Josh. I've just seen too many people in
this ng who think it's "cool" to spend a week going over every Star Trek
Re-run looking for continuity violations and "triumphantly" proclaiming
the latest item crap because of some violation that 99.999% of the
audience NEVER noticed in the first place. Validates their existance or
something. Don't even get me started about people who've never even run
across the word "budget" in the dictionary complaining about special
effects.
Robert Clark
No time/space wasting sig with a cutesy political philosphy....
Now isn't THAT a thrill?
j.b. DiGriz
Frankly, i think this is a subjective call. The poor guy's just mentioning
some inconsistencies with different bits of episodes. And i find no problem
with maintaining more strict parameters for disbelief suspension. Sure, there
are certain things that you'll let slide, if they can evoke some kind
of nostalgic/patriotic/cultural response from its viewer. In these instances,
you're more than willing to let really foolish plotholes just slide by.
For evidence, i enter every single Godzilla fan on the planet.
but unless they do something for you other than just straight
entertainment, I find myself expecting better of new sci-fi, and fiction in
general. Of course i'm willing to accept a certain set of givens for any
fantasy/sci-fi piece. Depending on how believeable/empathetic the characters
are, this can be stretched or constricted. ID4, for instance. UN-acceptable
because it was so painfully unconvincing. It gave me nothing in the way of
nostalgia or patriotism. Nothing on characters. And then they blow it out
of the water with the virus thing. Even as bad as the plotholes were, it might
have held together till they tempted fate and came too close to personal
interests. No guy is going to write a virus for an alien OS. No way.
And even if he could, can we say, 'h/w connectivity problems'?
But i digress.
I just think there's a lot of room for manuevering in this type of movie-making,
but how far you're willing to go is determined on an individual basis.
This is fine.
Worse thing is an apologist, though. *shudder* Can't stand bad sci-fi
plothole apologists, especially when they're clearly way-off the mark.
But that's just me.
j.b.
A. Higgins
On 29 Nov 1996, Scott Lowther wrote:
> If someone were to make a science fiction film in the present day, and
> they wanted it to be as good/great/profound/powerful/yadda/yadda/yadda
> as "2001," what would it take? Special effects seem like a rather
> limited start, as they are refined to a much higher art today than in
> "2001's" day (while the scenes with the Discovery are simply
> unbeatable, many of the Moon sequences look like not-so special
> effects).
>
> Was it the rather large scope of the film? Set over several million
> years and across the solar system?
>
> Was it the realistic way spaceflight was portrayed? If that's it, then
> "Apollo 13" should take "2001's" place, but I don't see that happening.
>
> Was it the rather supernatural aspect of the Monolith?
>
> Any suggestions?
Two words: "Stanley Kubrick"
--
Andrew J. Higgins
hig...@aa.washington.edu
Scott Lowther
If someone were to make a science fiction film in the present day, and
they wanted it to be as good/great/profound/powerful/yadda/yadda/yadda
as "2001," what would it take? Special effects seem like a rather
limited start, as they are refined to a much higher art today than in
"2001's" day (while the scenes with the Discovery are simply
unbeatable, many of the Moon sequences look like not-so special
effects).
Was it the rather large scope of the film? Set over several million
years and across the solar system?
Was it the realistic way spaceflight was portrayed? If that's it, then
"Apollo 13" should take "2001's" place, but I don't see that happening.
Was it the rather supernatural aspect of the Monolith?
Any suggestions?
P.S. This is, as it turns out, not as rhetorical a question as it may
first sound.
rel...@cbus.mindspring.com
lex...@ix.netcom.com(Scott Lowther) wrote:
>If someone were to make a science fiction film in the present day, and
>they wanted it to be as good/great/profound/powerful/yadda/yadda/yadda
>as "2001," what would it take? Special effects seem like a rather
>limited start, as they are refined to a much higher art today than in
>"2001's" day (while the scenes with the Discovery are simply
>unbeatable, many of the Moon sequences look like not-so special
>effects).
First of all, let's talk about the special effects. Many of them seem
run-of-the-mill today. But remember the time we're talking about.
It's 1968. And the most realistic science fiction movie of all time
is perhaps The Day the Earth Stood Still. This is the same year "The
Green Slime" came out about a green monster on an orbital space
station. It had the most cheesy special effects of all time.
This was still the period where people remembered Captain Video and
rockets on wires. Suddenly, this awesomly realistic movie comes out
and blows everything else out of the water. Suddenly, science fiction
movies are no longer the same. With one single movie, the entire
genre had to change.
>Was it the rather large scope of the film? Set over several million
>years and across the solar system?
Yes, that's part of it. It was an epic. An epic's epic. Kubrick
directed it full of mystery and intrigue. And it's subject was the
creation of life, of civilization, of God, of everything in the
universe.
And to his credit, he didn't wrap things up nice and neat. It left it
open and open to interpretation. He created a sense of the universe
with a very limited script (remember, the first person didn't say a
single word until more than a half hour into the film), a perfect
score, and a detached sort of direction (which is really his
trademark. Everything he does has that sort of detached, almot unreal
feel to it).
>Was it the realistic way spaceflight was portrayed? If that's it, then
>"Apollo 13" should take "2001's" place, but I don't see that happening.
Kurbrick was really the genius of 2001. For comparision, look at
2010. It's not a terrible movie, but it doesn't come close to 2001.
Peter Hyams just was not that skilled a director to be able to pull it
off. He wrapped things up nice and neat. The big mystery turned out
to be nothing more than a cosmic halmark card. Hyams spent more time
on the aero-braking sequence than on the plot.
Give that movie to Kubrick and see what happens.
James Campbell
A. Higgins wrote:
>
> On 29 Nov 1996, Scott Lowther wrote:
>
> > If someone were to make a science fiction film in the present day, and
> > they wanted it to be as good/great/profound/powerful/yadda/yadda/yadda
> > as "2001," what would it take? Special effects seem like a rather
> > limited start, as they are refined to a much higher art today than in
> > "2001's" day (while the scenes with the Discovery are simply
> > unbeatable, many of the Moon sequences look like not-so special
> > effects).
> >
> > years and across the solar system?
> >
> > "Apollo 13" should take "2001's" place, but I don't see that happening.
> >
> >
> > Any suggestions?
>
I agree with Andrew, Stanley is the factor. But more than that, his style of building
a scene and letting silence speak for itself. Almost like an author, he leaves just
the right amount to your imagination and did not use jokes, sex or "cheap 'n dirty"
dialogue to interest you. The music he uses in most of his movies is very well
chosen. Remember, Stanley had Arthur C. Clark to write with, so this movie was
touched by the hands of two very talented geniuses.
James Campbell
(opinions vary, mine more than most)
Frank Crary
In article <57nqa9$q...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>If someone were to make a science fiction film in the present day, and
>they wanted it to be as good/great/profound/powerful/yadda/yadda/yadda
>as "2001," what would it take? Special effects seem like a rather
>limited start, as they are refined to a much higher art today than in
>"2001's" day (while the scenes with the Discovery are simply
>unbeatable, many of the Moon sequences look like not-so special
>effects).
>Was it the rather large scope of the film? Set over several million
>years and across the solar system?
>Was it the realistic way spaceflight was portrayed? If that's it, then
>"Apollo 13" should take "2001's" place, but I don't see that happening.
>Was it the rather supernatural aspect of the Monolith?
I think it's a combination of the large scope and the realistic
portrait of spaceflight. 2001 showed things we've never done,
(orbital space stations, bases on the Moon, manned missions to the
outer solar system). But it also showed them in a way that is
believable and something we could do if we wanted to. In contrast,
Apollo 13 was quite realistic, but about something we have already
done. Outland and Silent Running were mostly realistic, but largely
focused on things other than space (space was the setting, not the plot.)
A few others are in the same class as Outland. All the other science
fiction movies I've seen are not at all realistic. While the show,
and sometimes base the plot on, things we've never done, they are
also clearly things we could never do, and every bit as much of
a fantasy as a movie about wizards and dragons. Star Wars, but
not its sequels, was close. It's clearly fantasy, but paid so
much attention to detail that it seemed like a real, possible
universe. So if you wanted to make another 2001, I'd say you'd
want to make it realistic and pay enough attention to details that
it _felt_ realistic (the space stations and vehicles in 2001
were realistic, but it wouldn't have felt as real without the
minor details, like the scene with Floyd Herbert reading the
instructions for a zero-gravity toilet with apparent urgency...)
_and_ to make the actual mission (or whatever) as much a part
of the plot as other issues. I.e. if you make a movie about
the first manned mission to Mars, don't turn it into a soap
opera about how the crew gets along on the way to and from
Mars. That's worth including, but not to the extent of overshadowing
the fact that they are exploring another planet. I think that's
the real problem: It's hard to make exploration isn't an exciting
conflict for movies. In novels, it's much easier: You can write
a great story about a man lost in Alaska freezing to death. But
if you make a movie of the same events, it's just some idiot
stumbling around. A movie can only communicate ideas in dramatic
images and people talking to each other. What the people involved
are thinking can't be communicated in a movie (voice overs of
characters talking to themselves almost never work.) So there
is an inherent problem of how to convey thoughts, the basic
issue of exploration, internal conflicts, and all the things that
make spaceflight special, without turning it into a movie about
the relationships between the characters. 2001 managed to do that,
but it was also unique as the first realistic science fiction movie.
That made it special even though most of the movie wasn't at all
dramatic.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Marks Robert B
Scott Lowther (lex...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: If someone were to make a science fiction film in the present day, and
: they wanted it to be as good/great/profound/powerful/yadda/yadda/yadda
: as "2001," what would it take? Special effects seem like a rather
: limited start, as they are refined to a much higher art today than in
: "2001's" day (while the scenes with the Discovery are simply
: unbeatable, many of the Moon sequences look like not-so special
: effects).
:
: Was it the rather large scope of the film? Set over several million
: years and across the solar system?
:
: Was it the realistic way spaceflight was portrayed? If that's it, then
: "Apollo 13" should take "2001's" place, but I don't see that happening.
:
: Was it the rather supernatural aspect of the Monolith?
: Any suggestions?
I would suggest that it is all of the above.
The monolith is interesting, because it is a trigger for human evolution
(just as Bowman [I think I got the name right; it has been a while since I
have seen the movie] evolved to the next stage of evolution at the end).
The special effects carry the plot away (and they are great, aren't
they?), and the plot is a vast one of discovery. Not war or death or
pestilence (well, maybe death because of HAL), but of humankind reaching
out beyond what it was.
Makes you wish they still made movies like that, eh?
Robert Marks
--
The future has not been written, / The past is set in stone,
And I am but a lonely wanderer, / With time as my only home.
-- from _Demon's Vengeance_
Louie Campbell
rel...@cbus.mindspring.com wrote:
>
> lex...@ix.netcom.com(Scott Lowther) wrote:
>
> >If someone were to make a science fiction film in the present day, and
> >they wanted it to be as good/great/profound/powerful/yadda/yadda/yadda
> >as "2001," what would it take?
>
> run-of-the-mill today. But remember the time we're talking about.
> It's 1968. And the most realistic science fiction movie of all time
> is perhaps The Day the Earth Stood Still. This is the same year "The
> Green Slime" came out about a green monster on an orbital space
> station. It had the most cheesy special effects of all time.
> This was still the period where people remembered Captain Video and
> rockets on wires. Suddenly, this awesomly realistic movie comes out
> and blows everything else out of the water. Suddenly, science fiction
> movies are no longer the same. With one single movie, the entire
> genre had to change.
> >Was it the rather large scope of the film? Set over several million
> >years and across the solar system?
>
> Yes, that's part of it. It was an epic. An epic's epic. Kubrick
> directed it full of mystery and intrigue. And it's subject was the
> creation of life, of civilization, of God, of everything in the
> universe.
> And to his credit, he didn't wrap things up nice and neat. It left it
> open and open to interpretation.
Excellent analysis. I would only add Arthur C. Clarke to the mix. His
best science fiction is among the best science fiction ever written.
Louis
Frank Warner
Add to all these comments the fact that we hadn't yet landed a man on
the moon in 1968, and that we had only recently seen clear color
pictures of the Earth from space.
In the early '60s, some scientists were even arguing that the Earth
was more pear-shaped than round. Then Apollo 8 went around the moon
and we knew otherwise.
Kubrick's pacing and ambiguity helped. We could feel the length of
the journey. And at a time rock'n'roll was overwhelming all the music
that went before, his use of "The Blue Danube" was startling, almost
alien, a sound of someplace distant.
On top of everything, back in 1968 we could still go to theaters with
screens a half block wide.
At the big-screen SamEric in Philadelphia, "2001: A Space Odyssey" put
you in outer space, and certain viewers brought in substances to
heighten the effect.
Frank Warner
Brian S. Thorn
fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) wrote:
>All the other science
>fiction movies I've seen are not at all realistic.
What about the base science-fiction elements of the first two "Alien"
movies? (The background, not the alien critters themselves.)
Travelling ore-processors, suspended animation during long transit
times, etc. Both seemed fairly realistic to me.
Also, perhaps "2010"?
-Brian
James C. Stutts
In article <57q0re$s...@news.ptd.net>, waki...@postoffice.ptd.net (Frank Warner) writes:
>Add to all these comments the fact that we hadn't yet landed a man on
>the moon in 1968, and that we had only recently seen clear color
>pictures of the Earth from space.
>
>In the early '60s, some scientists were even arguing that the Earth
>was more pear-shaped than round. Then Apollo 8 went around the moon
>and we knew otherwise.
Actually, the Earth is pear-shaped. ;) We knew that before Apollo 8, and
its still true today. In fact the French guessed this is 1735! Not surprisingly
the English held an opposite view. They were wrong.
Look up any ref for astrodynamics, such as:
"Adventures in Celestial Mechanics" by Victor Szebehely
----------------------------------------------------------------------
James C. Stutts stu...@eng.auburn.edu
Adaptive Aerostructures Lab, Department of Aerospace Engineering
211 Aerospace Engineering W: (334)-844-6813
Auburn University, AL 36849 Lab: (334)-844-6832
All opinions expressed are my own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Benson
In article <57nqa9$q...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> Scott Lowther,
lex...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>If someone were to make a science fiction film in the present day, and
>they wanted it to be as good/great/profound/powerful/yadda/yadda/yadda
>limited start, as they are refined to a much higher art today than in
>"2001's" day (while the scenes with the Discovery are simply
>unbeatable, many of the Moon sequences look like not-so special
>effects).
>
This film addressed the fundamental question in all of us:
What is our place in the cosmos?, and the huge success of the film
was that after seeing it, the question became more fantastic, more
mysterious,more beautiful.
More specifically, the film addressed the *future* of our place in
the cosmos, a question that appeals to most of us in this forum and
I guess a large segment of society. And the idea it supported was
that humanity is in its infancy and we have a lot of growing to do (IMHO).
The special effects, music, enhanced the focus of the movie without
detracting from the realism (as noted in other posts).
Timing was important. We still had a certain naivete about space travel
at that time, and we were primed for the moon shots.
In my mind, "2001" has had more effect on how we currently think
about space exploration than the Apollo program has had. If you have
a vision of human expansion into space, I bet "2001" had a lot to
do with it, Apollo was just supporting evidence that we might be able to
do it.
How do you make another "2001"? The same fundamental question is still
there; but how can you address it more effectively than Kubrick and co,
and what story can you find that will replicate the conditions of the
viewers at that time? Good Luck!
Scott Benson
Douglas Tricarico
In <rdclark-2711...@news.sover.net> rdc...@avalon.net (Robert
D. Clark) writes:
<snip>
>Because the Kontinuity Kops missed a few.
>
>This is FICTION, people...
>If you're the kind of person whose suspension of disbelief is THAT
easily
>pricked you have no business reading or watching anything remotely
>entertainment oriented.
>
>I don't necessarily mean you, Josh. I've just seen too many people in
>this ng who think it's "cool" to spend a week going over every Star
Trek
>Re-run looking for continuity violations and "triumphantly"
proclaiming
>the latest item crap because of some violation that 99.999% of the
>audience NEVER noticed in the first place. Validates their existance
or
>something. Don't even get me started about people who've never even
run
>across the word "budget" in the dictionary complaining about special
>effects.
>
>Robert Clark
>
>No time/space wasting sig with a cutesy political philosphy....
> Now isn't THAT a thrill?
On the other hand, how difficult is it to have a secretary enter these
factoids into the series' bible? All a writer (or series story editor)
then has to do is look it up in the index: "Let's see... Eugenics Wars,
page 25, total deaths, page 26, outcome, page 27..."
There's really no excuse to making basic continuity errors of the sort
people are talking about in this thread. Calling it "fiction" and
letting it go at that is a rationalization. It's simply lousy writing
by people who have no respect for the audience.
Doug (taking note of the irony dripping from Robert's sig)
Wayne C. McCullough
: In article <57nqa9$q...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> Scott Lowther,
: lex...@ix.netcom.com writes:
: >If someone were to make a science fiction film in the present day, and
: >they wanted it to be as good/great/profound/powerful/yadda/yadda/yadda
: >as "2001," what would it take? Special effects seem like a rather
: >limited start, as they are refined to a much higher art today than in
: >"2001's" day (while the scenes with the Discovery are simply
: >unbeatable, many of the Moon sequences look like not-so special
: >effects).
Am Ithe only person here who thinks that 2001 was a boring, decrepid waste
of film?
I mean, yes, the special effects were good, realistic, and entertaining.
The movie was boring, pointless, and instead of making me ask big questions
about mankinds place in the cosmos, made me ask big questions about why
anyone would really think that this is a good movie, or how they convinced
anyone to spend money on it.
I am also wondering if Hal's last line shouldn't be something like:
"If you arn't stonned, you would have more fun watching cows shit
than watching the rest of the movie."
W
Frank Warner
stu...@eng.auburn.edu (James C. Stutts) wrote:
>Actually, the Earth is pear-shaped. ;) We knew that before Apollo 8, and
>its still true today. In fact the French guessed this is 1735! Not surprisingly
>the English held an opposite view. They were wrong.
Interesting. Nevertheless, the Earth does not look like a pear from
outer space and, despite its imperfections, it is more perfectly round
than a cue ball.
And "2001" put us out there to see its perfection.
Frank
Thomas J. Frieling
>I agree with Andrew, Stanley is the factor. But more than that, his style of
>building
>a scene and letting silence speak for itself. Almost like an author, he leaves
>just
>the right amount to your imagination and did not use jokes, sex or "cheap 'n
>dirty"
>dialogue to interest you.
No, he saved all that for his next film : A Clockwork Orange.
Louie Campbell
Wayne C. McCullough wrote:
>
> Am Ithe only person here who thinks that 2001 was a boring, decrepid waste
> of film?
>
> I mean, yes, the special effects were good, realistic, and entertaining.
>
> The movie was boring, pointless, and instead of making me ask big questions
> about mankinds place in the cosmos, made me ask big questions about why
> anyone would really think that this is a good movie, or how they convinced
> anyone to spend money on it.
Well, I have read other posts from time to time expressing your point of
view, Wayne. And of course, we all have different likes and dislikes.
As one who was rapped up in the movie, fascinated by the questions that
remained unanswered, I wonder what it was that you found boring and
pointless. Was it that you weren't interested in the broad questions
themselves, or did you think they weren't raised well, or do you think
that science fiction should be more hardware and action-adventure and
less ultimate questions? These, of course, are all legitimate grounds
for being disappointed in a movie. I was just curious.
Louis
Thomas J. Frieling
>On top of everything, back in 1968 we could still go to theaters with
>screens a half block wide.
>At the big-screen SamEric in Philadelphia, "2001: A Space Odyssey" put
>you in outer space, and certain viewers brought in substances to
>heighten the effect.
Indeed. It's almost impossible to emphasize what it was like seeing 2001 in
Cinerama, as it was originally shot and shown--I can't personally speak to the
issue of the other 'substances.'
Cinerama was a wide screen process that was shown on a curved screen, sort of
like IMAX. I'm not particularly well versed in the technology of Cinerama,
but as I recall, it originally used three projectors to cover the wide, curved
screen and gave an almost 3-D effect. Kubrick (I think) made some type of
improvement that enabled Cinerama to be projected by one projector,
simplifying the projection of it.
But you had to see Cinerama movies at special Cinerama theatres--ones that had
the curved screen and special projector. I was fortunate to see 2001 about six
times at Cinerama theatres--first at the Eastwood Mall Theatre, later at the
Ritz in Birmingham, Alabama in 1968.
Years later, I saw it at the Fox in Atlanta (not a Cinerama theatre) and the
difference was striking (and disappointing).
I don't think either the Eastwood Mall Theatre or the Ritz still exist (I know
the Eastwood was chopped up into a multiplex, then closed; not so sure about
the Ritz). But do any Cinerama theatres still survive anywhere? Is it
possible to see 2001 in Cinerama as it was intended to be seen?
Serenleono, the Serene Lion
wa...@Glue.umd.edu (Wayne C. McCullough) wrote:
>Am I the only person here who thinks that 2001 was a
>boring, decrepid waste of film?
Of course, you're not. There are as many tastes as there
are tongues. No film is to be appreciated by everyone --
but, with so many genres and film-makers to chose from,
there is something for everyone in the market.
I adored it, myself, and still enjoy its realistic imagery
and subtle commentary decades after its release.
From: Serenleono (Ian)
ve...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~verax/home.htm
One opinion vying in the wilderness.
Frank Crary
In article <tfrielin.10...@catfish.bbc.peachnet.edu>,
Thomas J. Frieling <tfri...@catfish.bbc.peachnet.edu> wrote:
>Indeed. It's almost impossible to emphasize what it was like seeing 2001 in
>Cinerama, as it was originally shot and shown--I can't personally speak to the
>issue of the other 'substances.'
>Cinerama was a wide screen process that was shown on a curved screen, sort of
>like IMAX. I'm not particularly well versed in the technology of Cinerama,
>but as I recall, it originally used three projectors to cover the wide, curved
>screen and gave an almost 3-D effect. Kubrick (I think) made some type of
>improvement that enabled Cinerama to be projected by one projector,
>simplifying the projection of it.
>But you had to see Cinerama movies at special Cinerama theatres--ones that had
>I don't think either the Eastwood Mall Theatre or the Ritz still exist (I know
>the Eastwood was chopped up into a multiplex, then closed; not so sure about
>the Ritz). But do any Cinerama theatres still survive anywhere? Is it
>possible to see 2001 in Cinerama as it was intended to be seen?
I'm not sure, but I don't think there are any Cineramas left. However,
I think it's still possible to get the full effect. I know of two
theaters that are as wide and impressive as what you describe, and
use curved screens (One in Berkeley, CA and one in Washington, D.C.)
but they don't advertise anything about Cinerama, just have a reputation
for good, old-fashion, wide screens. I suspect that projection
equipment has improved since 1968, and special equipment is no longer
necessary, so long as they have a wide, curved screen. (By the
way, one, in Berkeley, can't compete for new releases, but stays
in business showing old classics, and there are frequent rumors that
the owners of the Washington theater are planning to chop it up
into three smaller ones, since that would be more profitable.
People like that sort of theater, but few are willing to pay more
for the ticket, and it's getting hard to pack that many seats.)
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Frank Crary
In article <57r8dq$t...@library.airnews.net>,
Brian S. Thorn <bth...@webstar.net> wrote:
>>All the other science
>>fiction movies I've seen are not at all realistic.
>What about the base science-fiction elements of the first two "Alien"
>movies? (The background, not the alien critters themselves.)
>Travelling ore-processors, suspended animation during long transit
>times, etc. Both seemed fairly realistic to me.
>Also, perhaps "2010"?
Good point. I still don't think Alien was realistic (even with
suspended animation, trips of only a years rather than centuries,
rest time, were implied, which either means warp drives or
relativistic spacecraft, which does not match the design of the
ship in question.) However, Alien did have the _feel_ of
realism, which is, in my opinion, as important as being
technically realistic. In any case, I shouldn't have said
"All the other... movies". If I thought a little longer, I
could have found other examples. But the vast majority of
science fiction movies are clearly space fantasy, with little
claim to realism. That was what I was trying to say.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Rand Simberg
On Mon, 2 Dec 1996 19:33:23 eastern, in a place far, far away,
tfri...@catfish.bbc.peachnet.edu (Thomas J. Frieling) made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>But do any Cinerama theatres still survive anywhere? Is it
>possible to see 2001 in Cinerama as it was intended to be seen?
It was shown at the Cineramadome in Hollywood about a year or so ago,
but I am not aware of any venue in which it can be seen in that medium
on a regular basis.
************************************************************************
sim...@interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1391 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Douglas Tricarico
In <tfrielin.10...@catfish.bbc.peachnet.edu>
tfri...@catfish.bbc.peachnet.edu (Thomas J. Frieling) writes:
>
>In article <57q0re$s...@news.ptd.net> waki...@postoffice.ptd.net
(Frank Warner) writes:
>possible to see 2001 in Cinerama as it was intended to be seen?
2001 wasn't made in Cinerama, but in 70mm... and shown on Cinerama
screens, which may lead to the confusion.
A restored version of 2001 (and actual Cinerama fare such as "How the
West Was Won," "This is Cinerama," and "Cinerama Holiday") can be seen
in Dayton, Ohio, at the New Neon Movies.
Doug
Chris Williams
In article <580716$h...@lace.colorado.edu>, fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU
says...
>I'm not sure, but I don't think there are any Cineramas left.
There's one in Bradford, UK.
By the way, has anyone (Artemis?) attempted to cost the potential return and
costs of making a half-hour IMAX film on/around the moon? What about Mars?
This seems to come quite close to the ideal intangible export.
Chris
Wayne C. McCullough
Louie Campbell (jl...@psu.edu) wrote:
: Well, I have read other posts from time to time expressing your point of
: view, Wayne. And of course, we all have different likes and dislikes.
: As one who was rapped up in the movie, fascinated by the questions that
: remained unanswered, I wonder what it was that you found boring and
: pointless. Was it that you weren't interested in the broad questions
: themselves, or did you think they weren't raised well, or do you think
: that science fiction should be more hardware and action-adventure and
: less ultimate questions? These, of course, are all legitimate grounds
: for being disappointed in a movie. I was just curious.
Well, 1) No character development. Except for hal, and not nearly enough
for Hal.
2) It is one thing to leave unanswered questions. It is another thing
to leave all questions unanswered.
As far as I can tell, the story ends 30 minutes before the end of the movie,
when Hal dies. Everything after that is an orgy meaningless special effects.
It provides no information on what the obolisk is, who or why it is, etc.
Not only do we not know what went wrong with the mission, we arn't even given
the foggiest clue to start even phrasing the question. An open ended
question is one thing. A question without relevance or data or whatever
is another ("How many dujuks can dance on a froombah?"). In 2001, it is like
the whole point of Hitchikers guide to the Galaxy... we don't know what the
question is.
Also, we have this whole issue of what happened to the last person left
alive on the discovery. We saw something, but as I said above, it provides
us with no information. ("Full of sound and furry, signifying nothing.")
3) 2001 is the greatest (and possibly first major) instance of substituting
special effects for plot, story, dialog, etc. This has destroyed movies
since, but somehow 2001 lives on.
4) 2001 has one small complete story nested inside a large void of
interesting material. That story is the story of conflict between
Hal and the crew. When this story starts, the movie starts getting
interesting. When it ends, so does the movie.
Let us contrast 2010 with 2001. 2010, despite it's many flaws, had
a plot. It had character development. It didn't substitute special
effects for dialog, plot, etc. It also had unanswered questions. It
is, by far, what I would rather be watching given the choice between
the two.
I have no problem with a story asking broad questions. I have a problem
with a conglameration of special effects pretending to be a story.
W
Max Exter
Wayne C. McCullough (wa...@Glue.umd.edu) wrote:
: Well, 1) No character development. Except for hal, and not nearly enough
: for Hal.
For me, 2001 wasn't a movie about characters. It was more a movie of
concepts and questions. I, for one, am glad that many questions weren't
answered. If they were, then it wouldn't have been half as thought
provoking as it was. I still don't understand the film, and that keeps me
coming back to it.
There is also the matter of some of the most breathtaking special effects
ever used in a film. IMHO, they still haven't been beaten. (And just so
people know what I compare this to, I'm a Babylon 5 fan.)
: As far as I can tell, the story ends 30 minutes before the end of the movie,
: when Hal dies. Everything after that is an orgy meaningless special effects.
But are they meaningless? Just because meaning can't be found doesn't mean
that it doesn't exist. Or maybe they are meaningless, and that is the
meaning. Not everything in life has to make sense.
: It provides no information on what the obolisk is, who or why it is, etc.
If you want to get into this sort of detail, why not try to figure out who
or why mankind is? I don't see why the answer to either question should be
easy to find.
: the whole point of Hitchikers guide to the Galaxy... we don't know what the
: question is.
Wasn't it "What is seven times eight?" I still haven't gone through all of
the books, so I'm not really sure.
: 3) 2001 is the greatest (and possibly first major) instance of substituting
: special effects for plot, story, dialog, etc.
To me, 2001 was the only film ever made that special effects successfully
substituted for dialogue. The story was there, it just wasn't spelled out.
- ME -
Thomas J. Frieling
>In <tfrielin.10...@catfish.bbc.peachnet.edu>
>tfri...@catfish.bbc.peachnet.edu (Thomas J. Frieling) writes:
> But do any Cinerama theatres still survive anywhere? Is it
>>possible to see 2001 in Cinerama as it was intended to be seen?
>2001 wasn't made in Cinerama, but in 70mm... and shown on Cinerama
>screens, which may lead to the confusion.
Well, based on my viewing of 2001 at the Fox Theatre in Atlanta which had a
huge, but flat screen, I know you really need the curved Cinerama screen to
make 2001 project properly.
I'm not sure what makes a movie Cinerama. But I do know 2001 was marketed as a
Cinerama production. My soundtrack album cover still bears the really cool
Cinerama logo--that folded thingy to denote the 3-D effect of the process.
Yes, agreed it was definitely shot in 70mm format. What format were the other
Cinerama films shot in?
As I recall Kubrick made some change in the Cinerama process that enabled it
to be projected through one projector instead of the three synchronized
projectors needed before for Cinerama films. Was going to 70mm the thing that
enabled the switch to one projector?
Was 2001 the last Cinerama feature ever made?
>A restored version of 2001 (and actual Cinerama fare such as "How the
>West Was Won," "This is Cinerama," and "Cinerama Holiday") can be seen
>in Dayton, Ohio, at the New Neon Movies.
Great to hear. Next time I'm up that way, I'll have to catch a showing!
Douglas Tricarico
Cinerama was sold and resold when the various owners didn't make money
off of it. By the mid '60s "Cinerama" meant nothing in and of itself,
for the name had been liscensed and was used on every type of film
imaginable, including 35mm.
2001 was shot with a curved screen in mind, using an anamorphic lens if
I'm not mistaken. Someone with more info can jump in any time. I
don't recall the last film shot in "real" Cinerama.
Real Cinerama uses three projectors projecting onto a curved screen
composed of ribbons strung from floor to ceiling. I don't know what
size film each projector is running, but it looked big to me. I seem
to recall that it ran 35mm film on its side with a separate soundtrack,
which gives a much larger picture (6 times?) than 35mm projected
normally... with 3 side-by-side projectors, it's an impressive show.
(The Neon has the projectors right in the lobby -- ask Larry when you
go, he'll tell you for sure.)
2001 is only being shown until the 15th of December, 1996, so if you
want to see it, go soon!
They also have a restored original "Cinerama" sign gracing the top of
the Neon movies. John Harvey, a Dayton projectionist who's kept all
this stuff in his house for the past 40 years, is the man to thank for
rescuing the equipment and the best existing print of "How the West Was
Won."
Doug
William H. Ivey
In <tfrielin.10...@catfish.bbc.peachnet.edu>
tfri...@catfish.bbc.peachnet.edu (Thomas J. Frieling) writes:
>
>I'm not sure what makes a movie Cinerama. But I do know 2001 was
>marketed as a Cinerama production. My soundtrack album cover still
>bears the really cool Cinerama logo--that folded thingy to denote the
>3-D effect of the process.
>
>Yes, agreed it was definitely shot in 70mm format. What format were
>the other Cinerama films shot in?
>
>As I recall Kubrick made some change in the Cinerama process that
>enabled it to be projected through one projector instead of the three
>synchronized projectors needed before for Cinerama films. Was going
>to 70mm the thing that enabled the switch to one projector?
I think Cinemascope was the earlier, three projector system (left,
right, and center). The Cinerama films I remember were shot using
anamorphic lenses (which squeezed the image, side to side, onto a
standard frame, either 35 or 70mm). Cenerama's width was more extreme
than most modern films, and with a curved screen the sense of being
"in" the film was enhanced. (The first week it opened, I saw 2001: from
the balcony - later I got to see it again from the front rows and it
was VERY impressive.)-Wm
Frank Crary
In article <57v88d$j...@news.ptd.net>,
Frank Warner <waki...@postoffice.ptd.net> wrote:
>>Actually, the Earth is pear-shaped. ;) We knew that before Apollo 8, and
>>its still true today. In fact the French guessed this is 1735! Not surprisingly
>>the English held an opposite view. They were wrong.
>Interesting. Nevertheless, the Earth does not look like a pear from
>outer space and, despite its imperfections, it is more perfectly round
>than a cue ball.
That's a pretty much pointless statement. No one ever claimed that
the Earth's equatorial bulge would be visible from space. The
Earth is wider at the equator than at the poles. This was measured
by missions like Apollo, and predicted in the early 1700s. It
is much more round than a cue ball, but it isn't perfectly
round, and that's exactly what the pre-spaceflight predictions
argued.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Oliver Morton
In article <57nqa9$q...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
lex...@ix.netcom.com(Scott Lowther) wrote:
> If someone were to make a science fiction film in the present day, and
> they wanted it to be as good/great/profound/powerful/yadda/yadda/yadda
> as "2001," what would it take? Special effects seem like a rather
> limited start, as they are refined to a much higher art today than in
> "2001's" day (while the scenes with the Discovery are simply
> unbeatable, many of the Moon sequences look like not-so special
> effects).
>
> Was it the rather large scope of the film? Set over several million
> years and across the solar system?
>
> Was it the realistic way spaceflight was portrayed? If that's it, then
> "Apollo 13" should take "2001's" place, but I don't see that happening.
>
> Was it the rather supernatural aspect of the Monolith?
>
> Any suggestions?
>
What makes 2001 great is its inhumanity. Kubrick has always been a very
cold director the pan from the Elisha Cook Jr's dead face to the
overturned parrot in its cage (The Killing) says it all. In a recent TV
documentary shown on UK channel 4, Malcolm McDowell (almost blinded in the
filming of Clockwork Orange, to judge by his account) said that it was
Kubrick's inhumanity which kept him from the status of genius. But its
also what makes 2001 great
2001 is inhuman in its scales, both temporal and spatial. It says "there
were prehumans, there are humans, there will be posthumans". It shows us
all the greatness of the von braun architecture, passing us lovingly from
shuttle to station to shuttle to moonbase to (a curiously non-ballistic)
point-to-point moon craft, in a process that must take clost to a half
hour of screen time, and the equates it all to, or trades it all in for, a
glimpse of a sort-of-fetus. The vision of humanity it offers is bleak:
crapping, eating, exercising, killing (of other apes and of HAL).
It is also deeply ambivalent in the way it looks at humans and
technology.The supernatural is given a deeply regular, technological
form(1:4:9), and an ambiguous role - transcendence comes through tools for
killing. Technology is seen as the defining the condition of modern life
(a point that setting the film in space makes with brilliant clarity) but
again, it's ambiguous. The very structure of Discovery makes that clear:
death in the form of radiation at one end of teh dumb-bell, life at the
other end, modular and inhuman stuff in between. Technology is also
involved in murder, be it a bone or a computer. This is not a pro-tech
film, anymore than it is a pro-human film. Technology is something
appropriate at one stage, not all - hence the unprotected life in orbit at
the end.
I don't think all this means that a great sf film has to be inhuman, but I
do think that it has to be able to step outside the human sphere, to
transcend the human scale, to achieve that ironic "look at the little
character, he doesn't understand, he thinks its only that, but we know
it's really ALL OF THIS" effect that John Clute identifies with the "sense
of wonder". Obviously effects help, but its that attitude that matters
most. A very low budget film of vonnegut's "galapagos" might achieve it
(if it removed the absurd and utterly self defeating ghost-narrator idea).
But I haven't found it in an sf film for a long time. \
--
"Waves broke in swift lines on the beach, and she walked over the sand towards her friends, in the wind, on Mars, on Mars, on Mars, on Mars, on Mars."
Douglas Tricarico
In <582tdj$c...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> wi...@ix.netcom.com(William
I'm fairly sure Cinemascope was a single-projector system which was
used during the same period as Cinerama (circa 1950-1965)... Cinerama,
in it's original incarnation, utilized three projectors.
After the Cinerama name was sold (separately from the process), it was
used on any film which liscensed the name. If memory serves, 2001 was
shot in Super Panavision, which is definitely NOT Cinerama. The use of
the Cinerama brand name was/is blatant false advertising on the
studio's part, and has nothing to do with the film.
Doug
Thomas J. Frieling
>What makes 2001 great is its inhumanity.
>2001 is inhuman in its scales, both temporal and spatial. It says "there
>were prehumans, there are humans, there will be posthumans". It shows us
>all the greatness of the von braun architecture, passing us lovingly from
>shuttle to station to shuttle to moonbase to (a curiously non-ballistic)
>point-to-point moon craft, in a process that must take clost to a half
>hour of screen time, and the equates it all to, or trades it all in for, a
>glimpse of a sort-of-fetus. The vision of humanity it offers is bleak:
>crapping, eating, exercising, killing (of other apes and of HAL).
>It is also deeply ambivalent in the way it looks at humans and
>technology.The supernatural is given a deeply regular, technological
>form(1:4:9), and an ambiguous role - transcendence comes through tools for
>killing. Technology is seen as the defining the condition of modern life
>(a point that setting the film in space makes with brilliant clarity) but
>again, it's ambiguous. The very structure of Discovery makes that clear:
>death in the form of radiation at one end of teh dumb-bell, life at the
>other end, modular and inhuman stuff in between. Technology is also
>involved in murder, be it a bone or a computer. This is not a pro-tech
>film, anymore than it is a pro-human film. Technology is something
>appropriate at one stage, not all - hence the unprotected life in orbit at
>the end.
Mr. Morton hits the nail on the head with this incisive post.
As much as I love the film from my frame of reference as a life-long space
buff, my personal frame of reference tends to blind me to Kubrick's *real*
message--the amibivilence of human progress in technological terms.
Kubrick makes space flight seem antiseptic (at least in the Discovery scenes)
and the astronauts as boring one-dimensional characters, leading the viewer to
make the connection between their soul-lessness and the technology that sucked
it out of them.
I think 2001 actually contributed to the zeitgeist at the time that eroded
public support for Apollo: If it was high tech or big government, it was bad.
Viet Nam and Apollo were one and the same to many.
2001 told the viewer that we may live on the moon, but we'll become
de-humanized by it: Not exaxctly the message NASA wanted to convey to the
general public.
And by the way, welcome to the group Mr. Morton. It's great to have someone of
your stature contributing to this gabfest.
Gordon Dahlquist
Actually, I think this view of 2001 (as "inhuman" and "antiseptic") is a
bit one-sided and limited, and that it's pretty presumptuous to equate
these characteristics to SK's work/pov as a whole. I think it was Bilge
Ebiri, some months back, who posted an excellent piece on the notion of
struggle-for/against-emotional-acknowledgement (sorry if I'm trviializing
or mis-stating his post too much) in SK's films - the duality of man
thing, sir, if you will - that seems very very deeply rooted in allof his
films, and again is deeply rooted in the acting in those films.
Everyone says the folks in 2001 are "wooden" and "inhuman", but really
they're just fucking >normal< (ie., dry, drab, not particularly
enthusiastic or "scripted") people going through their jobs. Sure, you
can draw a conclusion from it - and I'm not pretending that the film isn't
- but I am saying that it isn't some inhuman stretch for the film to do
so. I'm also saying that these "normal" characteristics are directly
contrasted against "heroic" efforts (both with 'moonwatcher' and bowman).
That these efforts - episodes of narrative "success" - are also violent,
ensure survival, and signify a certain insightful acknowledgement on the
part of the character is I think directly related to instances in other SK
films (like Joker shooting the sniper, say) that recall a similar
collision with emotional acknowledgment, but not from any "antiseptic"
context ...
Perhaps what I'm really getting at is my strong belief that what people
consistently characterize as "inhuman" in SK's films seems simply to be an
objective view of the various strategies of denial people employ in their
lives (in both normal and extreme circs), which is to say, it strikes as
human, all too human, just not larded with film conventions we've come to
accept as normal activity ...
Bruce Scott TOK
Frank Crary (fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: Good point. I still don't think Alien was realistic (even with
: suspended animation, trips of only a years rather than centuries,
: rest time, were implied, which either means warp drives or
: relativistic spacecraft, which does not match the design of the
: ship in question.) However, Alien did have the _feel_ of
: realism, which is, in my opinion, as important as being
: technically realistic. In any case, I shouldn't have said
: "All the other... movies". If I thought a little longer, I
: could have found other examples. But the vast majority of
: science fiction movies are clearly space fantasy, with little
: claim to realism. That was what I was trying to say.
I thought Silent Running was pretty realistic in this regard. The
setting, I mean, not the politics and the Earth having been
terraformed.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, b...@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/
Bruce Scott TOK
Douglas Tricarico (tr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: 2001 wasn't made in Cinerama, but in 70mm... and shown on Cinerama
: screens, which may lead to the confusion.
: A restored version of 2001 (and actual Cinerama fare such as "How the
: West Was Won," "This is Cinerama," and "Cinerama Holiday") can be seen
: in Dayton, Ohio, at the New Neon Movies.
It was certainly advertised as having been in cinerama -- I saw it for
the first time in a cinerama theatre in Washington DC in 1968 and still
remember the hullaballoo.
Bruce Scott TOK
Oliver Morton (oli...@wired.co.uk) wrote:
[really good points about the a-human feel and scale of 2001]
Right on the mark. This is exactly why 2001 is remembered and will be
remembered as long as there are people still living who saw it and felt
its impact when it first came out. It did things other movie operations
are probably afraid to do, especially to remind us that the cosmos is
a-human, in the sense that we are irrelevant.
Note how near-forgotten Star Wars is by comparison.
Thomas J. Frieling
In article <Pine.SUN.3.95L.96120...@watsun.cc.columbia.edu> Gordon Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu> writes:
>Actually, I think this view of 2001 (as "inhuman" and "antiseptic") is a
>bit one-sided and limited, and that it's pretty presumptuous to equate
>these characteristics to SK's work/pov as a whole.
I don't think I made such a sweeping assertion.
>Everyone says the folks in 2001 are "wooden" and "inhuman", but really
>they're just fucking >normal< (ie., dry, drab, not particularly
>enthusiastic or "scripted") people going through their jobs. Sure, you
>can draw a conclusion from it - and I'm not pretending that the film isn't
>- but I am saying that it isn't some inhuman stretch for the film to do so
Then how would you interpret the scene where Poole (?) watches his parents'
birthday greeting beamed to him on the TV screen and he watches with profound
indifference and a total lack of human emotion?
Douglas Tricarico
In <584jro$4u...@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> b...@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce
Scott TOK ) writes:
>
>Douglas Tricarico (tr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: 2001 wasn't made in Cinerama, but in 70mm... and shown on Cinerama
>: screens, which may lead to the confusion.
>
>: A restored version of 2001 (and actual Cinerama fare such as "How
the
>: West Was Won," "This is Cinerama," and "Cinerama Holiday") can be
seen
>: in Dayton, Ohio, at the New Neon Movies.
>
>It was certainly advertised as having been in cinerama -- I saw it for
>the first time in a cinerama theatre in Washington DC in 1968 and
still
>remember the hullaballoo.
Yes, it was -- and still is, apparently. But that was blatant false
advertising.
The Cinerama _brand name_ became liscensed and was used for all sorts
of movies which were never shot using the Cinerama _process_.
This kind of outright deception is why we always have to check the fine
print at the end of a film's credits.
Doug
freedom@webspan
> bit one-sided and limited, and that it's pretty presumptuous to equate
> Ebiri, some months back, who posted an excellent piece on the notion of
> struggle-for/against-emotional-acknowledgement (sorry if I'm trviializing
> or mis-stating his post too much) in SK's films - the duality of man
> thing, sir, if you will - that seems very very deeply rooted in allof his
> films, and again is deeply rooted in the acting in those films.
>
> they're just fucking >normal< (ie., dry, drab, not particularly
> enthusiastic or "scripted") people going through their jobs. Sure, you
> can draw a conclusion from it - and I'm not pretending that the film isn't
> - but I am saying that it isn't some inhuman stretch for the film to do
> contrasted against "heroic" efforts (both with 'moonwatcher' and bowman).
> That these efforts - episodes of narrative "success" - are also violent,
> ensure survival, and signify a certain insightful acknowledgement on the
> part of the character is I think directly related to instances in other SK
> films (like Joker shooting the sniper, say) that recall a similar
> collision with emotional acknowledgment, but not from any "antiseptic"
> context ...
>
> Perhaps what I'm really getting at is my strong belief that what people
> consistently characterize as "inhuman" in SK's films seems simply to be an
> objective view of the various strategies of denial people employ in their
> lives (in both normal and extreme circs), which is to say, it strikes as
> human, all too human, just not larded with film conventions we've come to
> accept as normal activity ...
Very insightful. For years, when I've heard people refer to Kubrick or
his characters as "cold" or "inhuman", I've asked myself, "What the hell
are they talking about?" I've never come away from a Kubrick film with
this impression (and I consider myself a caring and humane person). Can
anyone honestly say those poor soldiers in PATHS OF GLORY are "cold" or
"wooden". Jeez.
Jeff
helena euchoris
what made _2001 a great sf film for me:
1> those lips, that eye
the lip-reading scene -- one of
the most understated, but powerfully
constructed dramatic scenes in any
genre of cinema (right behind hal being
lobotomized)
2> leisure is the mother of philosophy
-- thomas hobbes
the vastness of space travel is portrayed very
very slowly with few sounds other than voices
3> hal's voice: gentle vindictive irrational poetry
Frank Crary
In article <584jo1$4u...@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce Scott TOK <b...@ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>: ...In any case, I shouldn't have said
>: "All the other... movies". If I thought a little longer, I
>: could have found other examples. But the vast majority of
>: science fiction movies are clearly space fantasy, with little
>: claim to realism. That was what I was trying to say.
>I thought Silent Running was pretty realistic in this regard. The
>setting, I mean, not the politics and the Earth having been
>terraformed.
Back up a second... The two films I named, other than 2001, as
being mostly realistic were Outland and Silent Running. My above
post just says that there are a few others I didn't mention, not
that Silent Running wasn't fairly realistic (and, as you say,
that means setting and technical details, not politics, etc.)
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Bill Dugan
tfri...@catfish.bbc.peachnet.edu (Thomas J. Frieling) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.95L.96120...@watsun.cc.columbia.edu> Gordon Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu> writes:
>>Actually, I think this view of 2001 (as "inhuman" and "antiseptic") is a
>>bit one-sided and limited, and that it's pretty presumptuous to equate
>>these characteristics to SK's work/pov as a whole.
>I don't think I made such a sweeping assertion.
>>Everyone says the folks in 2001 are "wooden" and "inhuman", but really
>>they're just fucking >normal< (ie., dry, drab, not particularly
>>enthusiastic or "scripted") people going through their jobs. Sure, you
>>can draw a conclusion from it - and I'm not pretending that the film isn't
>>- but I am saying that it isn't some inhuman stretch for the film to do so
>Then how would you interpret the scene where Poole (?) watches his parents'
>birthday greeting beamed to him on the TV screen and he watches with profound
>indifference and a total lack of human emotion?
Here's some possibilities:
(1) He thinks home-made videos are boring, and since his parents can't
see him he doesn't need to put on a happy face for their benefit.
(2) He's depressed at being several million miles from home on his
birthday, but being a strong, silent astronaut type he won't admit it.
(3) Both of the above.
Niall McAuley
>birthday greeting beamed to him on the TV screen and he watches with profound
>indifference and a total lack of human emotion?
It's a dull message, and his folks can't see his reaction,
so why get excited ?
All this stuff, like Floyd reading toilet instructions or
chatting to his little daughter, or the guys on the moon
shuttle discussing their sandwiches, is to establish that
these are ordinary people, doing regular jobs. I don't see
the characters as somehow dehumanized, just deliberately
not theatrical.
The deliberate lack of drama about the way the characters go
about their business adds to the feeling that the audience is
watching it all happen, not just watching a movie.
-----
Niall
Oliver Morton
In article <585eci$s...@lace.colorado.edu>, fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU
(Frank Crary) wrote:
> Back up a second... The two films I named, other than 2001, as
> being mostly realistic were Outland and Silent Running. My above
> post just says that there are a few others I didn't mention, not
> that Silent Running wasn't fairly realistic (and, as you say,
> that means setting and technical details, not politics, etc.)
>
> Frank Crary
> CU Boulder
Up to a point, Lord Copper: Silent running, if memory serves, requires
both true (ie non-spin) artificial gravity and a civilisation that can
build massive spacecraft but has forgotten that plants need sunlight.
Let's face it, it was a just an excuse for the Saturn's ring sequences
Trumbull had dreamt of for 2001.
George Ellis
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> I thought Silent Running was pretty realistic in this regard. The
Except for the artifical gravity abord the space ships, of course :-)
George
George Ellis
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>
> Oliver Morton (oli...@wired.co.uk) wrote:
>
> [really good points about the a-human feel and scale of 2001]
[snip]
> Note how near-forgotten Star Wars is by comparison.
You aren't aiming for a flame war, are you? :-)
George
JHOLL4
In article <oliver-0412...@wired47.wired.co.uk> oli...@wired.co.uk (Oliver Morton) writes:
>What makes 2001 great is its inhumanity.
Fascinating how much impact a film I've never seen has had
on a whole generation, judging from some of these comments....
(And from my fiance's "you have to see it someday" comments.)
--Cathy Mancus <man...@vnet.ibm.com>
Jan Vorbrueggen
JHOLL4@ writes:
> (And from my fiance's "you have to see it someday" comments.)
Indeed, you have to. You'll never think of "Also sprach Zarathustra" and
"Die schoene blaue Donau" in the same way again.
Jan
TUFFY LANGENBERGER
I'd just like to throw my $.02 into the discussion. . .
While I liked the way in which 2001 was filmed, I thought the original
point was missed. The movie was one of conquering technology
(the discovery of tools leading up to having one's life run by HAL the
computer, but then HAL is defeated and the movie seems to end)
while the book was about transcending technology. Evolving beyond it, to
be more precise.
I think the movie is a cinematic work of art, but I don't think it did
as much as it could have.
--
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
Gregg Germain
I was 14 when the movie came out and I rushed to see it. When I left
the theater I was confused. All the lush allegory was completely lost
upon me. I DID think that the special effects were fantastic and the
Blue Danube/moon trip was great, and HAL was cool etc etc etc.
Soon thereafter I read Clarke's book (which as far as I know was
written AFTER the movie was made), which explained a LOT. I then
understood.
It was a landmark science fiction movie in many ways: effects,
depth of message, etc. I still like to watch it on occasion. I don't
think another movie like 2001 would be popular now.
--- Gregg
Saville
gr...@hrc2.harvard.edu #29 Genie
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics #1762 CRIS
Phone: (617) 496-7713 "A Mig at your six is better than
no Mig at all."
Douglas Tricarico
In <y4enh5g...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> Jan
You think that's impressive, you should seek out the original score
sometime...
Gordon Dahlquist
On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Thomas J. Frieling wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.95L.96120...@watsun.cc.columbia.edu> Gordon Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu> writes:
>
> >Everyone says the folks in 2001 are "wooden" and "inhuman", but really
> >they're just fucking >normal< (ie., dry, drab, not particularly
> >enthusiastic or "scripted") people going through their jobs. Sure, you
> >can draw a conclusion from it - and I'm not pretending that the film isn't
> >- but I am saying that it isn't some inhuman stretch for the film to do so
>
> Then how would you interpret the scene where Poole (?) watches his parents'
> birthday greeting beamed to him on the TV screen and he watches with profound
> indifference and a total lack of human emotion?
I'm not saying Poole's necessarily a sensitive or "nice" guy, but that
this doesn't make him inhuman. Sure, one of the messages this scene
provides is the relative distance between Frank and the emotional
trappings of "normal" life, but - as someone else has posted - there's
also a level at which it's a thoroughly normal reaction. He's alone, in
space. The message is both awkward and treacly - and comes from a world
at great odds with what we understand to be Frank's world (ie., space
exploration, science, etc.). Your equation of indifference and "total
lack of human emotion" is what I'm disuting. General indifference, or the
inability to acknowledge connection, responsibility, community, self, etc.
is in fact probably the most frequently displayed element of human
behaviour. I don't think it's odd at all for a child - who through his
education and career is clearly in a very different place than his parents
- to feel an indifference and alienation towards them.
In any case, I think another element of the scene is to set up a
comparison between frank and dave, and to underscore the emotional/heroic
leaps dave takes later in the film. To me this gets more closely at a
recurring SK theme, which is an examination of how/why individuals make
choices, how they avoid or embrace risk and revelation, how these
individual choices relate to broader socio-historic issues, etc., etc.
C.T. White
rave...@primenet.com (helena euchoris) wrote:
>what made _2001 a great sf film for me:
One word: monkeys
C.T. White
crum...@earthlink.net
Frank Crary
In article <oliver-0512...@wired47.wired.co.uk>,
Oliver Morton <oli...@wired.co.uk> wrote:
>> Back up a second... The two films I named, other than 2001, as
>> being mostly realistic were Outland and Silent Running. My above
>> post just says that there are a few others I didn't mention, not
>> that Silent Running wasn't fairly realistic (and, as you say,
>> that means setting and technical details, not politics, etc.)
>Up to a point, Lord Copper: Silent running, if memory serves, requires
>both true (ie non-spin) artificial gravity and a civilisation that can
>build massive spacecraft but has forgotten that plants need sunlight.
>Let's face it, it was a just an excuse for the Saturn's ring sequences
>Trumbull had dreamt of for 2001.
Good point, but I did say "mostly" realistic (and Outland does have
the incorrect description of people exploding in vacuum...) I wasn't
actually thinking of the ring sequence in Silent Running, but of the
general description of how a spacecraft could avoid detection by
observers (i.e. the basis for the movie's title.) That seemed fairly
good, although it's been years since I've seen the movie and I
might be remembering it wrong.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Jan Vorbrueggen
tr...@ix.netcom.com(Douglas Tricarico) writes:
> >Indeed, you have to. You'll never think of "Also sprach Zarathustra"
> > and "Die schoene blaue Donau" in the same way again.
>
> You think that's impressive, you should seek out the original score
> sometime...
So, educate us - what's the difference to the released version?
Jan
Tom Carman
fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) wrote:
>In article <57r8dq$t...@library.airnews.net>,
>Brian S. Thorn <bth...@webstar.net> wrote:
>>What about the base science-fiction elements of the first two "Alien"
>>movies? (The background, not the alien critters themselves.)
>>Travelling ore-processors, suspended animation during long transit
>>times, etc. Both seemed fairly realistic to me.
>>Also, perhaps "2010"?
>Good point. I still don't think Alien was realistic (even with
>suspended animation, trips of only a years rather than centuries,
>rest time, were implied, which either means warp drives or
>relativistic spacecraft, which does not match the design of the
>ship in question.) However, Alien did have the _feel_ of
>realism, which is, in my opinion, as important as being
>technically realistic. In any case, I shouldn't have said
I got the distinct impression that the ships in "Alien" were _not_
relativistic, but _did_ have some sort of FTL drive. One thing to
consider is that just because you can move faster than light, it
doesn't necessarily follow that you move _a lot_ faster than light!
It could also be a factor of the size/mass of the ships in question.
The ship in "Aliens" was fairly large, but was also towing a gaint ore
processor (or whatever). The Marine ship in "Aliens 2" was a heavily
equipped military expedition that might need to speed years "in the
field". There might also be high-speed courier ships with relatively
small capacities. I notice that the Company ship in "Aliens 3", with
an executive and a handful of scientists, arrived fairly fast.
William H. Ivey
In <585eci$s...@lace.colorado.edu> fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank
Crary) writes:
>
>In article <584jo1$4u...@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
>Bruce Scott TOK <b...@ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>
>>terraformed.
>
>being mostly realistic were Outland and Silent Running. My above
>post just says that there are a few others I didn't mention, not
>that Silent Running wasn't fairly realistic (and, as you say,
>that means setting and technical details, not politics, etc.)
Outland? Wasn't that that Sean Connery vehicle with people exploding
from decompression? (Loses points for realism there, I'm afraid, but it
makes an ironic comparison to 2001:'s "coming in the back door"
scene.)-Wm
Bret Boulter
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>
> Oliver Morton (oli...@wired.co.uk) wrote:
>
> [really good points about the a-human feel and scale of 2001]
>
> remembered as long as there are people still living who saw it and felt
> its impact when it first came out. It did things other movie operations
> are probably afraid to do, especially to remind us that the cosmos is
> a-human, in the sense that we are irrelevant.
>
>
I love Kubrick, but you've been reading this newsgroup too long. Middle
America knows Star Wars like WE know 2001 - in the long term 2001 will
outshine SW, but I thought a reality check was in order.
Seen any 2001 action figures in retail stores lately?
William H. Ivey
In <y4enh5g...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> Jan
Vorbrueggen <j...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
>
>JHOLL4@ writes:
>
>> (And from my fiance's "you have to see it someday" comments.)
>
>and "Die schoene blaue Donau" in the same way again.
>
Just in case anyone missed it, Kubrick did a cute bit of product
placement in A Clockwork Orange: Take a look at the record rack when
Alex goes shopping... -Wm
Bret Boulter
JHOLL4@ wrote:
>
> In article <oliver-0412...@wired47.wired.co.uk> oli...@wired.co.uk (Oliver Morton) writes:
> >What makes 2001 great is its inhumanity.
>
> Fascinating how much impact a film I've never seen has had
> on a whole generation, judging from some of these comments....
>
>
You have to see it TODAY! ;-)
freedom@webspan
"2001 Action Figures"??? You've GOT to be kidding!
Hmmm; maybe that's what distinguishes a brilliant, groundbreaking FILM
from a stupid, cartoonish MOVIE--the lack of >toys< it spawns.
wiel...@cyber2.servtech.com
And the ONLY way to see it is letterboxed. The copy that I bought
several months ago was apparently some specially released version where
Stanley Kubrick himself oversaw the tranfer to video. It's an excellent
copy. Also being able to view the letterboxed version on a big screen TV
is a great advantage.
Rich Wielgosz...
___________________________________________________________________
Richard V. Wielgosz <wiel...@servtech.com>
http://www.servtech.com/public/wielgosz
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Robert mounce
>Very insightful. For years, when I've heard people refer to Kubrick or
>his characters as "cold" or "inhuman", I've asked myself, "What the hell
>are they talking about?" I've never come away from a Kubrick film with
>this impression (and I consider myself a caring and humane person). Can
>anyone honestly say those poor soldiers in PATHS OF GLORY are "cold" or
>"wooden". Jeez.
> Jeff
Or the passionate stirring speeches by Kirk Douglas as Spartacus,
the tremendously personal performances of Peter Ustinov,
Laurence Olivier, and Charles Laughton in the same, or the
end where Jean Simmons as Virinia holds Spartacus's son
up to a crucified Spartacus for him to see for the last time.
It's anything but cold.
Robert
Robert mounce
>>what made _2001 a great sf film for me:
>One word: monkeys
>C.T. White
>crum...@earthlink.net
Do you realize "2001" was made the same year as "Planet of the
Apes?" And furthermore that the Academy of Motion picture Arts
and Sciences (the "Oscar" award folks) gave the Academy Award
to "Planet of the Apes" for make-up effects rather than "2001"?
And furthermore, that they did so because many of them believed
that Kubrick used *real* apes for the scenes at the beginning of the
film rather than the actors in monkey suits he really used! A few
of the ape babies were real chimpanzees, but the rest were
actors. The less realistic "Planet of the Apes" make-up was
much inferior. I guess there is something to say for being
"too good".
Robert
Robert mounce
>> Seen any 2001 action figures in retail stores lately
>"2001 Action Figures"??? You've GOT to be kidding!
>Hmmm; maybe that's what distinguishes a brilliant, groundbreaking FILM
>from a stupid, cartoonish MOVIE--the lack of >toys< it spawns.
When I was a kid I assembled a model kit I bought in the
store of the 2001 lunar vehicle. I think you can still get the
Pan Am shuttle model kit today.
Robert
Martin Cannon
Robert mounce wrote:
>
> Do you realize "2001" was made the same year as "Planet of the
> Apes?"
Yup. 1968. I was there. Just a kid, but I still got a contact high from
all the groovy vibes in the air. It was a terrific year for science
fiction. As I may have once mentioned here before: Do you realise there
was a day in 1968 when one could watch the broadcast finale of "The
Prisoner" and then trundle off to see "2001" on the Cinerama screen? All
within the SAME five-hour period? Anyone who did that immediately
achieved Buddha nature.
And furthermore that the Academy of Motion picture Arts
> and Sciences (the "Oscar" award folks) gave the Academy Award
> to "Planet of the Apes" for make-up effects rather than "2001"?
A technical note: Guys who make latex masks and so forth for the movies
will be quick to tell you that there was NO regular award for "Best Make
Up Effects" until quite recently. (I forget the year this award was
instituted.) In 1968, the award was simply "Best Make Up."
Oh, before I go on: Does anyone remember Raquel Welch's memorable bit of
dialogue (not to mention her memorable gown) when she announced the
nominations for Best Special Effects, 1968 -- the award which DID go to
"2001"?
Consider that your quiz for the day...
> And furthermore, that they did so because many of them believed
> that Kubrick used *real* apes for the scenes at the beginning of the
> film rather than the actors in monkey suits he really used!
No. You've misunderstood a remark by Clarke, printed (if memory serves)
in "The Making of 2001." Clarke, rueful that 2001 did not win the Make
Up award, said: "Maybe they thought we were using real apes." (Or words
to that effect: I haven't the book to hand.) But that was just a
wisecrack. I've never seen or heard of an "exit poll" from an Academy
voter who actually said: "Wow! You mean -- those WEREN'T real
monkeys...?"
Eric Graffaldo
In article <rmounce.27...@us.net>,
rmo...@us.net (Robert mounce) wrote:
First, let me say that although Kubrick's films are
filled with "suffering humanity," his relationship with
his characters is more mental than emotional.
Kubrick's films are infinitely interesting and
compelling, but there's a decided lack of
"personal intimacy," to be found in these, and
the films of other great "cold" directors like Fritz
Lang, or Roman Polanski. A great "warm" director would
be Jean Renoir, or Vittorio De Sica.
Regarding the above example: ironically, I can't
remember where I read it, but Kubrick complained about
the (wild paraphrase) "schmaltzy, sentimental, unironic"
script of _Spartacus_ by Dalton Trumbo -- especially the
ending!
Kubrick's main vision, since _Killer's Kiss, etc., has
been (paraphrase): "alienated losers in a hostile
world." It's a noirish principle.
freedom@webspan
I, too, had one of the Aurora models back then--the Pan Am "Space
Clipper" as it was called. It was a very accurate model of the one
used in the film. (I wish I hadn't blown it up; it goes for quite a
little money today if you can find one unassembled, in the box.)
But one or two model replicas from Aurora is a bit different than the
marketing/merchandising business that >is< Star Wars.
Jeff
Rod Pennington
Robert mounce wrote:
> When I was a kid I assembled a model kit I bought in the
> store of the 2001 lunar vehicle. I think you can still get the
> Pan Am shuttle model kit today.
>
> Robert
I had one, too, Robert. Definitely the coolest model I ever had.
I had the Pan Am shuttle, too. I always wished they had a model
version of the lunar shuttle (that large, spherical vehicle that
carried Floyd from the space station to the moon).
The model you and I had was called the Moon Bus, I believe.
Rod Pennington
Frank Warner
fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) wrote:
>No one ever claimed that
>the Earth's equatorial bulge would be visible from space. The
>Earth is wider at the equator than at the poles. This was measured
>by missions like Apollo, and predicted in the early 1700s. It
>is much more round than a cue ball, but it isn't perfectly
>round, and that's exactly what the pre-spaceflight predictions
>argued.
> Frank Crary
> CU Boulder
Some had claimed the Earth's equatorial bulge would be visible. The
Earth simply looks more like a sphere than a pear to the human eye.
Frank Warner
Frank Crary
In article <32A89B...@rust.net>, Bret Boulter <GAI...@rust.net> wrote:
>> >What makes 2001 great is its inhumanity.
>> Fascinating how much impact a film I've never seen has had
>> on a whole generation, judging from some of these comments....
>> (And from my fiance's "you have to see it someday" comments.)
>You have to see it TODAY! ;-)
No, absolutely not. She should see it as soon as it's shown in
a good, wide-screen theater. But the movie loses too much of
its impact on a small screen for someone to run out and rent a
tape, and see it for the first time that way.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Frank Crary
In article <58a8fc$7...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
William H. Ivey <wi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Back up a second... The two films I named, other than 2001, as
>>being mostly realistic were Outland and Silent Running.
>Outland? Wasn't that that Sean Connery vehicle with people exploding
>from decompression? (Loses points for realism there, I'm afraid...
Yes. But explosive decompression was just about the only unrealistic
thing about it. Travel times to and from a remote mining colony
were well done, to the extent that the plot involved the hero
knowing exactly how much time he'd have to prepare before the
bad guys could land; tapping of communications was nicely
done; two of the bad guys were killed by putting them in
vacuum (the way they were shown dying wasn't realistic, but
the idea wasn't); and in general the details about life in
a remote colony were realistic (yes, the resident doctor
isn't going to be one of the best and brightest, a drunk,
incompetent, or malcontent is more likely, a mining colony
is going to have plenty of prostitutes, the company owning
it is going to have lots of power over the residents, etc.)
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Frank Crary
In article <Pine.SUN.3.95L.96120...@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>,
Gordon Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>> Then how would you interpret the scene where Poole (?) watches his parents'
>> birthday greeting beamed to him on the TV screen and he watches with profound
>> indifference and a total lack of human emotion?
>I'm not saying Poole's necessarily a sensitive or "nice" guy, but that
>this doesn't make him inhuman. Sure, one of the messages this scene
>provides is the relative distance between Frank and the emotional
>trappings of "normal" life, but - as someone else has posted - there's
>also a level at which it's a thoroughly normal reaction. He's alone, in
>space. The message is both awkward and treacly - and comes from a world
>at great odds with what we understand to be Frank's world (ie., space
>exploration, science, etc.).
Let's put this into prospective. I paid much attention to my birthday
for almost a decade. Sometimes I get a phone call from my mother,
if she can catch me while I'm at home and not on line. But that's
about it, and I've got better things to spend my time on than
celebrating the fact that I'm a year older. I don't think that
means I have a "total lack of human emotions" and I don't think
any of my friends would agree with that description. It just means
that I don't find much significance in remembering that I, like
the rest of the human race, get older at a rate of one year per
year. If I'd been in Poole's place in the movie, I would have
been thinking, "Great. The whole human race is going to see
footage of my family making fools of themselves over something
trivial. I hope they don't say anything embarrassing in the process.
Damn, the whole human race is probably going to be seeing pictures
of my reaction... I'm ought to pretend I'm enjoying this. I hate
that."
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
jjka...@aol.com
In article <rmounce.28...@us.net>, rmo...@us.net (Robert mounce)
writes:
>
>>> Seen any 2001 action figures in retail stores lately
No. I got mine trading with a guy from Spain. It was
made around 1982 [ date on catalog]. It by Madel.
Its a group of male and female figures called MADEL-
MAN. They have priates,cowboys,all types of milatry
figures and more [ 44 in all] . This one is called
ASTRONAUTA-2001. Its 6 1/2 inches in a silver space
suit with chest and back packs just like in the movie.
The best part is the helmet which is as good or better
than any thing done for ST or SW. The only other one I
was at a show for $ 200.
John
J. Kachmar
JJKa...@aol.com
freedom@webspan
I strongly agree. I introduced my wife (then girlfriend) to 2001 in
1988, via VHS video (beforehand giving her a long disclaimer on how I
saw the film in 1968, in 70mm Cinerama, and later in 35mm anamorphic,
and how much she'd be missing viewing it on TV). Much to my surprise-
given the viewing conditions-she was extremely impressed and very
moved by the film, saying that it was unlike anything she'd ever seen.
Then, for my birthday in 1990, she presented me with the Criterion
laserdisc release (which I had hinted about). We played this disc a
few nights later and, finally, Donna was able to see a close approx-
imation of the full 2001 image (although another disclaimer was in
order: the disc's letterbox aspect ratio is approximately 2:1 whereas
the film's actual 70mm ratio was about 2.21:1). Her reaction was even
stronger than on her previous viewing.
All this being said; one has never >really< seen ("experienced") 2001
unless they've been fortunate enough to see it in its original 70mm
curved-screen Cinerama presentation. It is overwhelming. In my opinion,
2001's original film format is actually an integral PART OF the film
itself--no less a part than any scene in the film. The film was
designed for the 70mm Cinerama format; it is an important, integral
part of its architecture.
I hope I don't sound like some nutty purist. And I'm not trying to
"rub it in" to the many people who were either too young or who weren't
around to see 2001 in its original Cinerama form (in fact, most people
in 1968 saw it in its 35mm anamorphic general release form). One can
certainly enjoy and profit from seeing 2001 on letterboxed laserdisc,
and the sound fed through a good home stereo will bring back much of
that part of the original experience. I guess even watching the pan&
scan VHS video is (slightly) better than nothing for those who are
unable to see the film any other way, which, unfortunately, is most
people. (Just never, ever, ever watch 2001 on commercial television,
as this is an abomination).
I'm just trying to illuminate the fact that one will not--cannot--
EXPERIENCE 2001 on video--whatever else they get from it. The minimum
requirement for this is to see the 35mm version presented in a tech-
nically superb theatre (of which there are few). As far as seeing the
film in its original 70mm Cinerama format, people might as well just
keep dreaming. Even if MGM/Turner decided--in a brief burst of good
sense--to re-release 2001 in this form, there are only one or two
theatres left in the US that are actually CAPABLE of showing it in this
form (not that every other town had one of these theatres in 1968
either). There are more theatres left that are capable of showing 70mm
non-Cinerama (flat) films--though this number is now substantially less
than existed in the '60's--but the the screens in many of these theatres
have been replaced with much smaller ones ("aspect ratio" has nothing
to do with absolute screen size; you could project a 70mm film on an
index card and retain the proper aspect ratio).
Those of us who are old enough are just left with our memories of seeing
2001 in its original Cinerama release. In my case, that memory
is indelible and vivid of that rainy Sunday afternoon long ago, in 1968,
when my mother suggested we go to thwe movies. The movie section of
the Sunday paper was spread-out on the kitchen table. My mother pointed
to the ad for 2001 and said, "This is supposed to be good; I've heard
alot about it".
Never being much of a fan of science-fiction movies, I wasn't too taken
by her suggestion, and I continued to scan the rest of the movie ads.
I remember my father wanted to see a comedy, I don't recall what, but
we soon decided to go with mom's desire.
A short while later we arrived at the Route 59 theatre, located on (you
guessed it) Rt.59, in Nanuet, NY. I remember the tall free-standing
marquee in the parking lot as we pulled in, its black letters arranged:
"IN SUPER PANAVISION AND CINERAMA
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY"
I remember the lights being very dim and erie music playing as we en-
tered the theatre and sat down. I sat waiting for the movie to begin,
staring at the huge dark blue curtain, but eventually noticing three
large speakers spread out on each side wall. For some reason, I
remember turning around and looking up at the projection room. A few
feet below was yet another loudspeaker.
Finally, the house lights dimmed completely and the erie music faded.
The curtains began to open from the center, and they continued to open
and open, and open for what seemed like a long time. I then heard a
very low rumble (I didn't know it was an organ pedal then) that I seemed
to feel more than hear, and the gargantuan screen was now almost a
luminescent blue, with a huge, fierce-looking "cartoon" lions head in
the center of it. The screen faded to black and then was filled by
a blue-gray moon sinking into the bottom of the frame, and I felt as
though my seat was either sinking down with it or rising with the
camera. I seem to remember "squinting" as the sun was revealed behind
the earth (but this could be a trick of my memory), and I remember as
the music seemed to get louder, the sound of the kettle drums from
behind the screen. The entire theatre seemed to be suspended in outer
space.
The "Dawn of Man" sequence began and I vividly recall the sounds of
light wind, and birds, and crickets seemingly coming from out of the
air in the theatre, from all directions. I also remember becoming very
impatient with this sequence, wondering what apes are doing in a
"space movie" and asking my mother what was going on. "I don't know
yet; be quiet", she replied. There was a hint of annoyance at my
question in her voice which, in turn, annoyed me. Needless to say, I
was completely baffled when the monolith first made its first
appearance, and so I tried questioning my father this time. I don't
recall his exact terse reply, but I know it contained the word, "stupid"
(referring to the movie--not me), and it was obvious he was not enjoying
himself.
I began "getting into" the film at the point where the ape discovers
his "tool" and, in slow-motion, begins pounding the skeleton to bits
while "Zarathustra" was being blasted from the speakers. I found
this a very profound scene--subconsciously--because I still didn't
really "understand" what was going on. It is also at this point that
I noticed my mother was silently weeping. My mother was (and is) an
emotional person, but I didn't understand why she was crying at some-
thing that wasn't "sad" (I do remember her crying during the crucific-
tion scene in BEN HUR--oddly enough in the same theatre, a few years
before, during a 70mm run). I leaned over and asked her why she was
crying, and she said something to the effect of "I can't explain it".
I looked back at the screen, and then it dawned on me: whatever the
reason was that I found this scene "profound" was the same thing that
was making my mom weep. It was then that I first experienced sublimity,
though, of course, I didn't know what that was.
As the film progressed, I became more and more engrossed in it, until
I was completely enveloped by it. Mind you, at that time I had NO IDEA
what anything in the film "meant", but I ended up being annoyed at MY
non-understanding rather than dismissing the film as "stupid"--as many
people (and my dad) did, and do. I found the film very profound,
without being mentally developed enough to know WHY I found it profound.
This is part of what people mean when they call the film a "religious
experience". At the very least, I had never seen anything like it,
and it was the first time I paid any attention to the credits on a
movie.
I remember the "light-show" sequence and being impressed by how LOUD
the sound was--there is a point during this sequence when there is a
very shrill, screeching sound, and this was so >piercing< in volume
that it was painful (yeah, I know there are those who'd say a projec-
tionist should never have the volume loud enough to cause pain, but
fuck it....it was cool, and that speaker system didn't distort once. The
power of the medium was certainly displayed to great advantage with
presentaions of 2001 such as this. Yep, they knew how to e-x-h-i-b-i-t
films back den).
I can clearly recall how I reacted to the scene of the very old Dave
Bowman, raising his out-stretched hand to the monolith that appears at
the foot of his deathbed, and then--with complete silence on the sound-
track--is transformed into the luminescent embryo, as that low rumble
started again. Kubrick connected with my 14 year old subconscious; my
throat began to tighten and my eyes started to burn; they were filling
with moisture and I had to keep blinking, and I had to keep swallowing,
and I didn't really know why, but I knew why, but I couldn't explain
why--then the Starchild filled the gargantuan screen, and the sound was
so beautifully loud, and the moisture spilled over onto my cheek, and
my throat muscles were sore from being so tight, and I had to wipe my
cheek with the heel of my hand so I wouldn't be embarrassed when the
lights came on, and the sound was so wonderfully powerful, and the
picture was soooo big, and then the image faded-out and the titles
began, and the first one said": "THIS FILM WAS DIRECTED AND PRODUCED BY
STANLEY KUBRICK", and I wondered, in silence, as I sat there after the
lights came on. My "life" changed then.
To be continued, maybe. Jeff-
Davidson
tfri...@catfish.bbc.peachnet.edu (Thomas J. Frieling) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.95L.96120...@watsun.cc.columbia.edu> Gordon Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu> writes:
>
>
>>bit one-sided and limited, and that it's pretty presumptuous to equate
>>these characteristics to SK's work/pov as a whole.
>
>I don't think I made such a sweeping assertion.
>>Everyone says the folks in 2001 are "wooden" and "inhuman", but really
>>they're just fucking >normal< (ie., dry, drab, not particularly
>>enthusiastic or "scripted") people going through their jobs. Sure, you
>>can draw a conclusion from it - and I'm not pretending that the film isn't
>>- but I am saying that it isn't some inhuman stretch for the film to do so
>
>birthday greeting beamed to him on the TV screen and he watches with profound
>indifference and a total lack of human emotion?
>
Here's some more evidence of Poole's lack of emotion. In the lip
reading scene, Bowman has concern for the effect of turning off HAL,
and shows some empathy for him. Poole doesn't. This makes the
lobotomy scene even more wrenching, but perhaps it is another reason
why Bowman survives and Poole doesn't
Scott
ch...@computek.net
>Robert mounce wrote:
>>
>
>> Do you realize "2001" was made the same year as "Planet of the
>> Apes?"
My personal dream project would be for Stan, Mr. Kubrick, The Sterile
King, to film a remake of PLANET OF THE APES. That would be an
incredible movie.
Actually, any output whatsoever would be great.
TTFN,
--Chunk--
Frank Warner
"freedom@webspan" <fre...@webspan.net> wrote:
>All this being said; one has never >really< seen ("experienced") 2001
>unless they've been fortunate enough to see it in its original 70mm
>curved-screen Cinerama presentation. It is overwhelming. In my opinion,
>2001's original film format is actually an integral PART OF the film
>itself--no less a part than any scene in the film. The film was
>designed for the 70mm Cinerama format; it is an important, integral
>part of its architecture.
Jeff,
An excellent point, and a vivid memory.
I've long thought Hollywood should re-release many of its movies to
the movie theaters, so younger viewers can get the full effect. I
believe people would pay to see them.
In the case of "2001: A Space Odyssey," all of us should challenge all
the directors and producers in Hollywood to demand that enough
giant-screen theaters be built throughout America, indeed the world,
so that everyone call see this film in its full glory.
In the year 2001.
Frank Warner
JHOLL4
>>Cathy Mancus wrote:
>>> Fascinating how much impact a film I've never seen has had
>>> on a whole generation, judging from some of these comments....
>>> (And from my fiance's "you have to see it someday" comments.)
>In article <32A89B...@rust.net>, Bret Boulter <GAI...@rust.net> wrote:
>>You have to see it TODAY! ;-)
In <58dfa5$2...@lace.colorado.edu>, fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>No, absolutely not. She should see it as soon as it's shown in
>a good, wide-screen theater. But the movie loses too much of
>its impact on a small screen for someone to run out and rent a
>tape, and see it for the first time that way.
I suspect I'd be waiting forever if I waited for it to
reappear on the big screen. Unfortunately, I don't have access
to a "home theater" either; not being big TV watchers, we have
a little TV and an old, beat-up, VCR, period. (And seven bookshelves,
three library cards, and two computers. :-)
It will also be interesting to see if I've "spoiled" the
effect by reading the book many years ago.
--Cathy Mancus <man...@vnet.ibm.com>
James M. Briggs
In article <32abca68...@news.computek.net>, ch...@computek.net wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Dec 1996 12:52:30 -0800, Martin Cannon
><mca...@instanet.com> wrote:
>
>>Robert mounce wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Do you realize "2001" was made the same year as "Planet of the
>>> Apes?"
>
Academy Award for Costume/Makeup/Special Effects over 2001 because the academy
thought the "Apes" in 2001 were real rather than actors in costume.
>My personal dream project would be for Stan, Mr. Kubrick, The Sterile
>King, to film a remake of PLANET OF THE APES. That would be an
>incredible movie.
>
Planet of the Apes is being re-made, but not by Kubrick.
>Actually, any output whatsoever would be great.
>
> TTFN,
> --Chunk--
Kubrick is working on 'AI' (Artificial Intelligence) and another project who's
name escapes me at the moment ):
Jim
David Mullen
>>All this being said; one has never >really< seen ("experienced") 2001
>>unless they've been fortunate enough to see it in its original 70mm
>>curved-screen Cinerama presentation. It is overwhelming. In my opinion,
>>2001's original film format is actually an integral PART OF the film
>>itself--no less a part than any scene in the film. The film was
>>designed for the 70mm Cinerama format; it is an important, integral
>>part of its architecture.
I first saw "2001" when it premiered on national TV around 1976 or 77 - I was
14 years old and had read the Clarke novel but had not been able to see the
film. Also, my parents had the soundtrack album and I used to stare at the
photos in the jacket for a long time. Even though broadcast TV (and panned &
scanned) was a horrible way to see the film, I was glued to the set for its
entire broadcast - and I wasn't bored for one minute.
Since then I've seen the film projected in 70mm about seven times over the
years, the last time being the new print shown at the Cinerama Dome (which is
a curved screen). It has always been an incredible experience. However, 65mm
Super Panavision (in which the film was shot) and Cinerama (originally three
35mm 6-perf prints projected on a curved screen) are two separate things.
Although the film was advertized as being shown in Cinerama, I doubt it was a
3-panel presentation. It might have been shown in 70mm on a curved Cinerama
screen (Super Cinerama just meant that the theater had been built as a
Cinerama theater, not converted to one.) Personally, I prefer a flat screen
for widescreen movies - if the projector is too high, there will be keystoning
of horizontal objects. The Discovery becomes slightly banana-shaped on the
Cinerama Dome screen. To me, the size of the screen is more important than
the curve. And even though Kubrick composed the film very carefully for the
65mm 2.21 aspect ratio, I doubt he could "compose" or take into account the
effect of a curved screen.
The dramatic effect of the few films shot in Cinerama (with three 35mm cameras
each with a 25mm lens) like "How the West Was Won" was due both to the curved
screen AND the fact that each image had three vanishing points in it - one for
each panel - because each camera had a vanishing point. This creates an
unusual effect - as you turn your head to look to a side panel, you get a new
vanishing point, as if you are still centered with the screen. This makes the
experience very three-dimensional.
When 65mm was developed for TODD-AO, a fish-eye lens was also developed for
the camera to create a similar sensation to Cinerama, but it wasn't the same
feeling.
David M.
freedom@webspan
David Mullen wrote:
>
> >>All this being said; one has never >really< seen ("experienced") 2001
> >>unless they've been fortunate enough to see it in its original 70mm
> >>curved-screen Cinerama presentation. It is overwhelming. In my opinion,
> >>2001's original film format is actually an integral PART OF the film
> >>itself--no less a part than any scene in the film. The film was
> >>designed for the 70mm Cinerama format; it is an important, integral
> >>part of its architecture.
>
You are, of course, completely correct in the differentiation of true
3 camera/3 projector Cinerama vs. "Super Cinerama"--which 2001 was
presented in. However, after the former process was abandoned, the
term "Cinerama" was generically applied to all 70mm films that were
designed to be shown on >curved< 70mm screen--the more technically
correct "Super Cinerama" label was not used as often.
The Rt.59 theatre I mentioned was built as a Cinerama theatre and
my first two 2001 experiences there were, indeed, on a huge curved
screen. The distortion you speak of was definitely NOT present dur-
ing the showings here, but ironically I did notice it (or something
like it) every time I'd see the 35mm anamorphic screening at other
theatres. It is noticeable only during certain scenes and is even
visible on my Criterion "widescreen" laserdisc (sort of like lens
"pincushion" distortion). This leads me to respectfully disagree with
your point about Kubrick NOT having a curved screen in mind and having
Unsworth proceed accordingly (and even the film's 4th title credit says
"IN CINERAMA").
Could it be, perhaps, that the "banana Discovery" you described was a
result of too great a degree of screen curvature? I've seen movies NOT
designed for the curved screen that were nevertheless shown on one, and
the distortion you describe is then very pronounced. But, as I've said,
my two 1968 Cinerama experiences with 2001 were definitely sans this
distortion.
The third time I saw 2001 in 70mm was during a 1971 re-release at the
beautifully equipped Zeigfeld theatre in New York. The screen here was
also huge, but seeing it here "felt" just a >little< bit different than
my experiences 3 years earlier. Now that I think of it, this was
because the screen was................................FLAT!
Jeff
freedom@webspan
Maybe you just shouldn't bother. Really, I mean that in all sincerity.
David Mullen
>This leads me to respectfully disagree with
>your point about Kubrick NOT having a curved screen in mind and having
>Unsworth proceed accordingly (and even the film's 4th title credit says
>"IN CINERAMA").
Well, as a working cinematographer, I have difficulty in knowing how one would
set-up a shot with a curved screen in mind, other than avoiding horizontal
lines. As for the idea that Kubrick used wide-angle lenses as way to augment
the curved screen experience, I must remind you that Kubrick always uses wide
angle lenses, whether the film is wide or not. Like I've said, I've seen
"2001" in 70mm on both curved and flat screens and I prefer the flat screen.
Just my opinion.
David M.
William H. Ivey
In <58de2u$1...@lace.colorado.edu> fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank
Crary) writes:
>
>In article <58a8fc$7...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>William H. Ivey <wi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>Back up a second... The two films I named, other than 2001, as
>>>being mostly realistic were Outland and Silent Running.
>
>>Outland? Wasn't that that Sean Connery vehicle with people exploding
>>from decompression? (Loses points for realism there, I'm afraid...
>
>Yes. But explosive decompression was just about the only unrealistic
>thing about it.
I seem to recall a scene involving anti-gravity - the criminals
floating around in some kind of stasis prison? A scene obviously
created for visual effect, not for realism (it seems to be the only
application for the technology in the story).
[...]
>and in general the details about life in a remote colony were
>realistic (yes, the resident doctor isn't going to be one of the best
>and brightest, a drunk, incompetent, or malcontent is more likely, a
>mining colony is going to have plenty of prostitutes, the company
>owning it is going to have lots of power over the residents, etc.)
I forget who it was, but one author pointed out years ago that so many
SF stories (written, and, especially, filmed) ignore real-world
experience in analogous situations. For example: polar
research/military installations, nuclear submarines, space stations
such as Mir, deep-sea oil platforms, several centuries' experience of
the British Navy (and others), commercial and penal colonies of the not
so distant past, etc. And, in this case, Outland ignored a lot of
economic experience on how to improve production :-)
It isn't just Outland, of course. Alien II's writer's apparently could
have done with some more military reading. Cool as it was, my father -
a 30yr career officer in the Marine Corps - commented that "If those
idiots had been in my outfit, I'd have shot 'em myself as a national
service." -Wm
William H. Ivey
In <58hb2k$k...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com> JHOLL4@ writes:
>
> I suspect I'd be waiting forever if I waited for it [2001:] to
Depends on where you live. It shows up in Austin, Texas, about once a
year at the Paramount (a restored theater downtown) as part of their
summer film series. And, who knows, maybe there'll be a general
re-release in 1998 as a 30year anniversary special.-Wm
wiel...@cyber2.servtech.com
In <58ia8j$b...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, wi...@ix.netcom.com(William H. Ivey) writes:
>It isn't just Outland, of course. Alien II's writer's apparently could
>have done with some more military reading. Cool as it was, my father -
>a 30yr career officer in the Marine Corps - commented that "If those
>idiots had been in my outfit, I'd have shot 'em myself as a national
>service." -Wm
Wasn't Alien II really called ALIENS?
Also, I used to work with a guy who was in the corp for 10 or 12 years,
and he thought the marine corp scenes were very realistic. But I think he
meant the preparation scenes. Not the scenes with the incompetent
captain...
Edward A Gedeon
>
> Oh, before I go on: Does anyone remember Raquel Welch's memorable bit of
> dialogue (not to mention her memorable gown) when she announced the
> nominations for Best Special Effects, 1968 -- the award which DID go to
> "2001"?
>
> Consider that your quiz for the day...
>
"Hi, I'm Raquel Welch, and I'm here for Visual Effects.
And I have two of them."
As Dave Barry would say: I swear I am not making this up.
(Can you say off-topic, boys and girls? I knew you could.)
--
Edward Gedeon / The opinions above are not my employers'. / Member DNRC O-
******************************
"I was put on Earth to raise other people's children."
Jody Lynne Gedeon, 1953-1996
Derek Clarke
As far as I'm concerned, the one big thing about 2001, the thing that
made it unique and that was completely spoilt by 2010 was:
NO ENGINE NOISES!
F.A. Qureshi
In article <58b6o6$36k...@primenet.primenet.com>,
rave...@primenet.com (Eric Graffaldo) wrote:
>Regarding the above example: ironically, I can't
>remember where I read it, but Kubrick complained about
>the (wild paraphrase) "schmaltzy, sentimental, unironic"
>script of _Spartacus_ by Dalton Trumbo -- especially the
>ending!
I remember reading (I think it was in Michel Ciment's book) that Kubrick
wrote the ending of Spartacus himself.
BTW, has anyone evr read the Original novel by Howard Fast. Came across a
copy in a library but, unfortunately, I wasn't a member. How does it compare
to the film and what Kubrick would have liked Spartacus to have been?
FAQ
P.S
Sorry about the sig. Trying to get rid of it. Hopefully it's gone.
geoffrey alexander
In article <davidm.82...@themall.net>, dav...@themall.net (David
Mullen) wrote:
I'm looking right now at one of the articles published by Cinefantastique
in June of 1984 as part of their "2001" retrospective. Douglas Trumball
writes:
"During the entire production of the film, we never once viewed footage on
a curved screen or in the format. What would happen is we'd shoot in 65mm,
but the lab would generate 35mm anamorphic prints for us to look at. So all
through the production, all we saw were 35mm anamorphic prints on a small,
flat screen. We never saw it in a Cinerama theatre. It wasn't until the
very, very end of photography, or maybe once during production, that I
think Kubrick took a couple of 70mm prints and went down to a 70mm theatre
to see how it looked. I wasn't there, I wasn't privy to that. So, in a
sense, the movie was not made with a curved screen in mind. In some of the
Cinerama theatres there was a serious... [continued on page 46]"
Unfortunately, the person who sent my my copy of the article didn't include
page 46, or others. Til now I haven't worried, as this wasn't due on our
newsgroup archive site for about a month. Could someone fish up this copy
of the mag and send it ALL to me? I'd be much grateful.
Geoffrey Alexander
__________________________________________________________
If you can talk brilliantly enough about a problem, it can
create the consoling illusion that it has been mastered...
Stanley Kubrick
__________________________________________________________
The Kubrick Site @ http://www.netins.net/showcase/sahaja
geoffrey alexander
In article <58k5v7$g...@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>, c2x...@eng.delcoelect.com
(Edward A Gedeon) wrote:
> >
> > Oh, before I go on: Does anyone remember Raquel Welch's memorable bit of
> > dialogue (not to mention her memorable gown) when she announced the
> > nominations for Best Special Effects, 1968 -- the award which DID go to
> > "2001"?
> >
> > Consider that your quiz for the day...
> >
> "Hi, I'm Raquel Welch, and I'm here for Visual Effects.
> And I have two of them."
>
> As Dave Barry would say: I swear I am not making this up.
>
As Jonny Carson used to say, "...I did not KNOW that..." You mean Stanley
Kubrick was handed the only Academy award he's every received in his life
by Raquel Welch?
Yikes.
Louie Campbell
Gerry Palo wrote:
>
> In article <583ukp$us_...@primenet.primenet.com>,
> helena euchoris <rave...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> >what made _2001 a great sf film for me:
> >
> >
> >the vastness of space travel is portrayed very
> >very slowly with few sounds other than voices
>
> This is very insightful. 2001 is a powerfully human and powerfully
> dramatic film. The critics didn't understand either of these qualities
> because their angle of vision was too small. They wanted the space
> equivalent of the Keystone Cops running around on the screen and couldn't
> understand that time and pace on a cosmic scale are different than in
> everyday earthly life. They got what they wanted in Star Wars, but they
> never really understood the proportions - human and dramatic - of 2001.
>
> It was a little like an opera critic who knows only Mozart and Rossini
> who hears Wagner for the first time.
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado
> pa...@netcom.com
This, too, is insightful.
Louis
Gerry Palo
In article <583ukp$us_...@primenet.primenet.com>,
helena euchoris <rave...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>what made _2001 a great sf film for me:
>
>
>
>the lip-reading scene -- one of
>the most understated, but powerfully
>constructed dramatic scenes in any
>genre of cinema (right behind hal being
>lobotomized)
>
>
>
>2> leisure is the mother of philosophy
> -- thomas hobbes
Darrel J. Best
geoffrey alexander wrote:
>
> In article <58k5v7$g...@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>, c2x...@eng.delcoelect.com
> (Edward A Gedeon) wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Oh, before I go on: Does anyone remember Raquel Welch's memorable bit of
> > > dialogue (not to mention her memorable gown) when she announced the
> > > nominations for Best Special Effects, 1968 -- the award which DID go to
> > > "2001"?
> > >
> > > Consider that your quiz for the day...
> > >
> > "Hi, I'm Raquel Welch, and I'm here for Visual Effects.
> > And I have two of them."
> >
> > As Dave Barry would say: I swear I am not making this up.
> >
> As Jonny Carson used to say, "...I did not KNOW that..." You mean Stanley
> Kubrick was handed the only Academy award he's every received in his life
> by Raquel Welch?
>
> Yikes.
>
accept the award?
-Darrel Best
freedom@webspan
John Gruber wrote:
>
> > <32A913...@webspan.net>
> Distribution:
>
> freedom@webspan (fre...@webspan.net) wrote:
> : > Seen any 2001 action figures in retail stores lately
> :
> : "2001 Action Figures"??? You've GOT to be kidding!
> :
> : Hmmm; maybe that's what distinguishes a brilliant, groundbreaking FILM
> : from a stupid, cartoonish MOVIE--the lack of >toys< it spawns.
>
> Man, I don't know where you guys are from, but here in Philadelphia the
> Toys-R-Us stores all have limited edition 30th Anniversay 2001: A Space
> Odyssey toys. They've got the ship [with lasers!], action figures, and an
> "Electronic Talking HAL" playset. The action figures are numbered and
> signed by "Stan" Kubrick!!!
>
> --
> Gruber
...and I am the product of a Virgin birth.