View Full Version : Custom Titanium 2001 Moonbus
03-15-2009, 10:17 PM
Comments very welcome... here's my new "custom" Titanium-sized Moonbus from 2001: A Space Odyssey... the unpainted resin mould was from minimodelmadness.com (now defunct but still popping up on eBay).
I've always liked the ship design from 2001... its pacing, not so much... but it's still a classic and was a great leap forward, IMHO. I'm still trying to forget 2010: The Year We Cash In, though.
Time to grab a sandwich on the 'bus and check out that shrieking Monolith under Tycho Crater...
03-16-2009, 03:13 PM
Looks good. A little wobbly in the close-up (mainly the windows), but customs are like that, it's expected, even when they're garage kits. The paint and details work well with the scale.
I actually liked "2010", where Kubrick's "2001" went for a very visual story that had lots of audience participation required to tell itself, 2010 went with a more traditional sci-fi route and told a complete story. I'm not by any means saying it's better, just that it's different. I'd say the only real failure of the film is its short-sighted "Soviets vs US" storyline that has no place in modern society.
03-18-2009, 02:58 PM
I see 2010 as an entertaining Hollywood movie but I thought that it really undermined the impact, power, and sheer brilliance of Kubrick's original. And I never bought the naive premise that Jupiter's conversion into a star would instantly stop Earth's warring adversaries from lobbing nukes at each other.
2001 redefined what a sci-fi film could be... it brought the genre into the 20th century. It was also the movie my parents went to on their first date, so I may owe my own very existence to it, at a later time! Call me Starchild....
I think the sfx and production design still look great... 40 years later! Unlike say, Trek TOS, Zardoz or the original Planet of the Apes which all show their liver spots (I still like 'em though).
Had they left the 2001 stuff out of 2010, it could have been just as good as a separate adventure, IMO.
03-21-2009, 02:27 PM
Once again.. Nice! :yes::thumbsup:
There's quite a few cool spacecraft from 2001 wouldn't mind seeing, and 2010.
As I'm sure you know, some of the model makers from 2001 worked on Star Wars, and Battlestar Galactica.
03-22-2009, 10:57 PM
Here's the thing, 2001:ASO wasn't "Kubrick's" original, it was a collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke, and 2010 is closer to Clarke's style while the movie of 2001 is more Kubrick. The funny thing is, most 2001 fans say that 2010 is only enjoyable to those who didn't get 2001, but I always "got" both of them even from when I was a kid, and they're just different sides of the coin, they both do a good job of saying that aliens are out there and doing stuff, one is a direct narrative while the other is the opposite. Heck, 2010 puts back stuff that 2001 pulled out of the original story, "my god, it's full of stars" always seemed interesting to me.
Wait, did you just admit to liking Zardoz? ;)
03-23-2009, 07:45 PM
Here's the thing, 2001:ASO wasn't "Kubrick's" original, it was a collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke, and 2010 is closer to Clarke's style while the movie of 2001 is more Kubrick.
Bit of an understatement... 2001 the film is overwhelmingly Kubrick's movie, IMO. The lack of dialogue, the pacing, the camera moves, the performances, the silence, the music... classic Kubrick in every way. Of course Clarke had a major hand in the screenplay's development, but everything about the film's final construction screams Kubrick to me. The same aesthetic's at work in Clockwork and The Shining: Kubrick took brilliant source material and made something original out of it.
2001 the film is a work of art because it is so strongly Kubrick's... no one else would have made that movie that way. 2010 is a popcorn movie. A good popcorn movie but just about any Hollywood director could have directed what we got. Maybe even Vince from ShamWow.
I wish they'd given 2010 to someone like David Lynch, Alan Parker, or even Scidley Rott... a director from that era with a unique visual style.
The funny thing is, most 2001 fans say that 2010 is only enjoyable to those who didn't get 2001, but I always "got" both of them even from when I was a kid, and they're just different sides of the coin, they both do a good job of saying that aliens are out there and doing stuff, one is a direct narrative while the other is the opposite.
No doubt, there's a lot of pretentious snobbery on the 2001 bandwagon... it is possible to like both. Probably not in equal measure, though.
Heck, 2010 puts back stuff that 2001 pulled out of the original story, "my god, it's full of stars" always seemed interesting to me.
I do like the full of stars line, though the infinite possibilities that it suggested was pretty much reduced (in 2010) to beasties on Europa, an extra star, and all that Halman stuff.
Cosmic cut down to commonplace... sci-fi where everything's neatly spelled out... I think that that's my major beef with 2010 and Clarke's sequels.
It's like the "midi-chlorian" thing... takes all of the mystery and metaphysics away. Well, not all: I did read 2010, 2061 and 3001.:)
Wait, did you just admit to liking Zardoz? ;)
Hehe, Zardoz has its moments... a flying Stone Head and Sean Connery in orange diapers... what's not to like? I do have a thing for odd little sci-fi B-movies... Barbarella or Fantastic Planet, anyone?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.