Sponsored Links


Movie Series - 2001: A Space Odyssey

Based on the book written by Arthur C. Clarke, this science fiction movie was released in 1968. The movie told the story about a spaceship known as the Discovery One and its crew who head to Jupiter to find out the mystery of an artifact found on the moon. It starred Keir Dullea as Dr. David Bowman, Gary Lockwood as Dr. Frank Poole, William Sylvester as Dr. Heywood R. Floyd, and the voice of Douglas Rain as HAL 9000. Its sequel, 2010, was released in 1984 and based on Arthur C. Clarke's novel 2010: Odyssey Two. It was set 9 years after the first movie, and the efforts to find out what happened to the crew of the Discovery One.

Wikipedia Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)
eBay Link: View 2001: A Space Odyssey on eBay

Boned When... (Login to Submit a Reason)

1 Never Boned Still rocks.
Please Login to Vote
2 Day 1 Sucked from the start.
Please Login to Vote

2001: A Space Odyssey Comments (You must Login to Comment)

1 In fairness, quite a few audiences back in 1968-69 weren't sure what to make of it either. I saw it not long after it first came out, in my little redneck town's sole theater. The "Dawn of Man" scene at the beginning drew alot of laughs from the uncomprehending yokels surrounding me - "Looky at them dang ole monkey men a-jumpin around, har har har!" - and quite a few of them walked out before the movie ended. And let's face it; that last "Starchild" scene couldn't help but be a head-scratcher if one hadn't read the book beforehand. Still, the comments on this thread about the 21st-century American attention span are right on the money. I might also add that certain realistic details of 2001, such as the lack of sound in space, were jettisoned in the making of 2010, probably as a dumbing-down sop to audiences conditioned by Star Trek and Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica to expect explosions in space to be really noisy. -- Submitted By: (Soggy9000) on April 13, 2011, 3:09 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
2 Travoltron I'm not surprised, seeing as we're living at a time when people love the bad and hate the good. And to be fair, the movie really is too slow-paced for today's dumbed down audience used to rap[d-fire clips and sound bites. -- Submitted By: (DolFan316) on April 11, 2011, 12:58 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
3 There's an online reviewer that has pretty much made a name for himself for quite vocally panning this movie. Mostly the video is just him showing clips from the film and saying, "This is boring!" (He also says 2010 is the superior film.) Now it seems like 2001-bashing is the "hip" thing to do. -- Submitted By: (Travoltron) on April 10, 2011, 8:17 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
4 Sadly, this movie could never be made today because it requires the viewer to have an attention span longer than 30 seconds. -- Submitted By: (DolFan316) on April 9, 2011, 6:05 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
5 2010 is to 2001 what The Godfather Part 3 is to its two predecessors - a big fat wart on an otherwise lovely face. -- Submitted By: (Soggy9000) on April 9, 2011, 4:01 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
6 If only our reality did turn out like this. I could really go for some homicidal AI right about now to correct some "human error" with _______ (insert whoever is relevant right now). -- Submitted By: (dr_sarcastor) on November 4, 2010, 1:56 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
7 Watched 2010 today. Kind of depressing to see an alternate year 2010 where we have interplanetary travel and AI. I think the only thing it got right was that the US was at war. Except instead of the Middle East it was South America. So I guess they got that wrong, too. I did like how they didn't give the Earth futuristic buildings (like Back to the Future II or The Jetsons did); it looks more or less like our world does now. Perhaps they didn't have the budget to do it. IIRC, they didn't show any cars either, which was smart. -- Submitted By: (Travoltron) on October 14, 2010, 12:16 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
8 Keep in mind that 2001 originally went into production in 1964, and the special effects were being worked on for literally years, long before most people had even heard of LSD. Clarke himself stated that he wasn't into drugs at the time, and I don't think Kubrick was either, so I doubt that it was their intention to produce a light show for the acid crowd. They were trying to produce visuals for an experience "Beyond the infinite", and this just happened to coincide with the peak of the LSD craze. -- Submitted By: (Eugene) on May 18, 2010, 3:09 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
9 I think the "mystical touches" should best be understood within the context of the year 1968, and the late 1960s in general. This was a time when LSD expanding your mind was actually taken seriously, and a lot of creative people were doing bizarre, acid-trip kind of stuff in art. I can't really explain the whole thing, having not even been alive then, but trying to understand the famous trip sequences of 2001 really is hopeless unless done within the cultural context of the 1960s. -- Submitted By: (doctor_awesome) on January 21, 2010, 8:29 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
10 It's not quite as simple as that. Clarke and Kubrick did write a book first, but the movie revised parts of the book, and parts of the book were revised based on the movie. Additionally, parts of the book included things that it was difficult to film, and which were thus left out of the movie. Finally, I suspect that some of the mystical touches in the movie were more Kubrick's contribution. The complete process ended up being a full time effort for Clarke and Kubrick for about four years, and the finished product was very different from what they intended to do at the beginning. If you want to learn more about the process, read the book "The lost worlds of 2001" by Clarke, which goes into the history in some detail, and includes large extracts from earlier versions of the book. -- Submitted By: (Eugene) on November 21, 2009, 7:37 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
11 It was really based on the book, though. Kubrick and Clarke collaborated on a story, then Clarke made a book out of it and Kubrick made a movie. -- Submitted By: (doctor_awesome) on November 20, 2009, 11:56 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
12 The first movie did not follow the book as well as one would think. If the movie leaves you feeling confused, read the book on which it was based, and it will explain in greater detail. But the effects were amazing. -- Submitted By: (Robert) on August 20, 2009, 3:44 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
13 It may sound odd but I actually liked the SEQUEL much better since it explained things in a quasi-logical way- and I thought it was cool that HAL was willing to sacrifice himself to save the crews (and the Earth)! Of course, I didn't actually see the original until sometime later- and soon got bored with the thing having virtually no dialogue,little action and even the space craft having zero color. Sorry, but I never got into the trippy,psychelic scene. However; when I saw the original's end, I thought 'Ah-HAH! NOW I see why the hippies liked this movie so much!'. Oh, and here it is 2009, and not only has manned interplanetary space travel not happened, and the Soviet Union got disbanded just a few years after "2010" was filmed but also such things as Pan-American no longer exist despite the film's prediction. -- Submitted By: (Pelirojo) on August 16, 2009, 2:21 pm - (1 votes) - Login to Vote
14 I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. -- Submitted By: (Robert) on August 15, 2009, 1:32 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote

Login to See the QUICK COMMENT Box


Log in to BTF

Register - Forgot password?

Follow on Twitter!

App on Facebook


Related eBay Auctions

Powered By: TempusMedia - (Page load took:0.662 seconds)