You say "tomato", I say "tomahto". I suppose you are right, but a lot - especially the last portion - feels like a really big cinematic april fools joke basically because the film seems to have not much to say about the monolith so it needs to pad. The trip into the monolith is very reminiscent in a backwards way of Star Trek: The Motion Picture's decent into V'ger. But that's me, and I actually do like 2001, it's just got aspects that feel like cheating and slop to me.Originally posted by wedgeA
Great call on 2010. I don't necessarily agree with your statements regarding 2001, as I think they filmakers wanted to create a philospohical statement to be digested, examined and discussed, but not thoroughly understood. Anyway, I think that 2010 is a worthy sequel and is for the most part unfairly disregarded by fans of the original.
Yeah, that's what it seems like. That's how I accepted it from the beginning, light on the sci-fi front, heavy on the "fight for the sake of fighting" front - it's an "action sci-fi film" rather than a "sci-fi action film". Dark City covers the sci-fi and philosophical fronts very well, but it's not meant to be an action film (thankfully!).Originally posted by wedgeA
I think the filmakers said "nuff talk and thinkin' stuff, let's fight!!"
EP, Blade Runner was on the top of my list along with TRON, I was saying that it's a shame that they're not more well-known or watched. Never seen War of the Worlds yet, I'll have to check that one out.
r2, I almost mentioned "The Time Machine", but then I remembered all those weekends as a kid watching Tom Hayden play that film on KTLA ch 5 and it reminded me that I don't really think it's "cool". It probably is, but it feels like someone's grandmother's old ribbon candy. I think "The Terminator" and most of the Trek films are considered mainstream enough, so I didn't mention them (that and I'm a Trekkie so I think the world revolves around them films ).
JON9000, this might not be the thread for this discussion, but I think while you're right about those scenes being cinematic classics, I don't think "Man Discovering Tools (thanks to the monolith)" and "the Starchild" are really honest pieces of the puzzle, I think like many other elements of the film, it's style over substance in order to confound and dazzle and confuse the masses - those 2, like other shots, are more like the mirror at the end of the bar that makes it seem like it really is a "mile-long bar".
I've seen the film on the big screen 3 times, mostly as an older kid, and none of them were satisfying to my young mind that wanted more sci-fi and less style, more story and less misdirection, more statement and less vague philosophy. If it weren't for 2010, I wouldn't even like 2001 at all. I feel like 2001 lacks balance thanks to a lack of cohesive story (I blame Clarke for co-writing the story with Kubrick) that is only balanced out by the sequel - yet I'd forgive the first film so much more if not for the fact that it's too long (unless you're stoned, then I suppose the space-baby is a gasser ).